Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
"oohay moc." <loopy_bajj@yahoo.com> writes:
> So! I was wondering what the community at large, and hopefully the
> main Debian developers, think about InaTux's "Author's Choice of
> Terminology License"? You can find it here:
> http://www.inatux.com/actl/
It's much more practical to look at how *works* are licensed, since
often the details of the license are best considered in light of the
specific work.
What specific existing works is this license currently applied to? What
specific works is it proposed for application to?
> It has been discontinued, but, I am wondering if the community and the
> Debian developers would think about licensing the Debian operating
> system under such a license?
There is no single license for the Debian operating system. It is
distributed under the combined terms of all its thousands of component
parts. The copyright license terms for each part should be documented in
‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’.
If you want to discuss further in the context of specific works, I
suggest you take it to the ‘debian-legal’ list (Cc set). If you *don't*
want to discuss in the context of specific works, I'm not understanding
what the point is.
> I know it conflicts with the GNU GPL, but putting that aside.
It only conflicts with the GNU GPL if one attempts to apply its terms
simultaneously with the GPL to the same work.
> I have sent an email to Richard Stallman asking a similar question, no
> response.
What is it you are hoping to get from such a conversation, either with
Richard Stallman or with the Debian project? I'm having difficulty
seeing what the subject is.
--
\ “I must say that I find television very educational. The minute |
`\ somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.” |
_o__) —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney
Reply to: