On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
The OSI decision would follow from the assumption of GPL
compatibility, though I suspect that that is not why the OSI chose to
certify the Sleepycat License as OSI-compliant. Perhaps there's some
information in the license-discuss archives.
Not that it really matters, but all I could find was an approval
announcement
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/3/3191
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
It's worth noting that the Sleepycat License was designed with
what
bkuhn would call a 'proprietary relicensing' business model in mind
(at least based on the historical material I recall seeing). I suppose
if that's true it might seem to suggest that the Sleepycat License was
meant to be read as having a *broader* copyleft-ish scope than GPLv2
(which would imply that the FSF seemingly erred in classifying it as
GPL-compatible). (Why else would Michael Olson or whoever wrote the
license not have just used GPLv2? Berkeley sentimentality?)
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/3/9845 says "For embedded use,
the Sleepycat license might be a little bit stronger than the GPL (if
the manufacturers plan to bundle any enhancements at all); it
certainly has worked for Sleepycat to bring device makers (like Cisco)
to the table."
Mike