On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Fontana fontana@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@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