Add header & footer to blog posts.

pages/blog/2017-04-18-a-library-copyleft-license-combination.html.php

@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+<?php
+require 'config.php';
+require '2017-04-18-a-library-copyleft-license-combination.cfg.php';
+require 'templates/blog-header.php';
+?>
 <p>Recently I came across the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepycat_License" target="_blank" >Sleepycat License</a>, which I believed to be a copyleft Free Software license that only requires any projects using the Sleepycat licensed software to disclose source code (not necessarily forcing any particular license on the user). I thought that this would be a great license for a library, since unlike the (A)GPL it doesn't force the developer using my library to use the same license (many people who like permissive licenses prefer to be able to choose their own license for their project), but at the same time whoever uses my library must at least disclose their source code (freedom #1... kinda). So I thought that with some slight modifications (since the license is also extremely specific to the BerkleyDB software) that the Sleepycat License would be a great license for libraries (better than GPL or LGPL). So after <a href="https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-04/msg00012.html" target="_blank" >a very long discussion on the LibrePlanet-Discuss mailing list</a> I figured out that <a href="https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-04/msg00035.html" target="_blank" >the Sleepycat License wasn't exactly what I thought it was</a>.</p>
 
 <p>However, during the mailing list someone mentioned something about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation" target="_blank" >license proliferation</a>, which got me thinking that perhaps instead of looking for some new obscure license maybe I could do this with existing licenses, using conditional dual-licensing. With this I thought of the <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl" target="_blank" >GNU article on using (A)GPL instead of the LGPL for libraries</a>. The two licenses in question are the LGPL and the (A)GPL. The LGPL has the advantage that it does not force any particular license on the developer using the library and remains copyleft with regards to the library's source-code itself, but it has a flaw that is fixed by the (A)GPL, which is that the LGPL can be used by non-free projects as well as free projects, which to some of us is not something that settles well with our concious. However, the (A)GPL forces the project using the library to carry the (A)GPL as well. So, both of these had elements that I wanted, but they both had drawbacks. With this I finally thought of a dual-licensing scheme that could work to have the best of both licenses. It consists in <a href="https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-04/msg00019.html" target="_blank" >licensing your library with the (A)GPL and offering an LGPL dual-licensing (with static linkage) to any project licensed exclusively with FSF approved licenses</a>.</p>
@@ -10,3 +15,7 @@
 
 <p>I believe that this licensing scheme solves the eternal problem in library licensing between copyleft and permissive licenses without compromising a good concious, more copyleft than permissive licenses (such as MIT), not as strict about how projects using the library license themselves (such as GPL), and no compromising on ethics by not helping in any manner a non-free project (such as LGPL).</p>
 
+
+<?php
+require 'templates/blog-footer.php';
+?>