Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepycat License


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Sleepycat Software. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sleepycat License

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't find any sources that would establish notablity. I'm not sure about the notability of Sleepycat Software, which is the company that created the license, but I've found very little about the license itself, and notability isn't inherited from the company that created it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Computing,  and Software.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sleepycat Software, and optionally merge in some discussion of the license at that article. Sources from the early 2000s talk about Sleepycat Software as an example of the "dual-licensing" business model where developers use both an open-source and a proprietary license. However, these place almost no weight on the Sleepycat License. This book contains an entire chapter from Sleepycat's CEO, Michael Olson, where he writes about dual-licensing, without discussing the Sleepycat License: https://ia600907.us.archive.org/1/items/opensources2.000diborich/opensources2.000diborich.pdf Olson advises, "Academic licenses are poorly suited to dual-licensing businesses, but reciprocal licenses generally work well. [...] Choosing the GPL gives you the benefit of the work already done by the Free Software Foundation, or FSF, in drafting the license and defining the key terms. [...] It is almost certainly a mistake to try to draft your own open source license for a dual-licensing business." Even their CEO did not seem to place much weight on it.  Rjjiii  (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect as above. Not notable enough for independent article. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.