Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license

["Suraj N. Kurapati" <skurapat@ucsc.edu>]

Don Armstrong wrote:
> you are specifically restricting the distribution of binaries
> beyond what the GPL restricts. Since the combination of code
> under your license and the GPL cannot be distributed exactly
> under the terms of the GPL, it cannot, as a consequence, be
> distributed at all.

I believe the SleepyCat license solves this problem by allowing
distributions to contain information on how to obtain the source
code (in lieu of containing the source code itself).

Since the FSF says SleepyCat is compatible with the GPL, this seems
to be a good solution to implement in my experiment:

  These copies and portions shall be distributed with their source
  code or with information on how to obtain their source code.

What do you think?

Thanks for your consideration.