On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:49:12 -0500 John Cowan wrote:
> Francesco Poli scripsit:
>
> > a) releasing the work under a real copyright license grant (such as
> > the Expat a.k.a. MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
>
> The AFL *is* a "real copyright license grant"; it already grants
> everything the MIT license does and more.
Well, the AFL is a copyright license grant *and* a contract.
By "real" copyright license grant, I meant something that is a copyright
license grant and nothing else.
[...]
> > In that case Debian would (probably) not accept the contract and
> > simply distribute under the Expat license.
>
> Nothing requires Debian to become a licensor just because they are
> distributing AFLed code, though Debian would have that option.
But, if it's true (as you seem to say) that Debian can legally
distribute FIGlet under (say) the Expat license, with no mention to the
original license at all, why not making this much clearer by splitting
the AFL into an optional contract and a simple free non-copyleft license
(just like the Expat license).
> (Is Debian a legal person?)
I don't think so.
And that is probably another issue with contract-ish licenses: who is
going to accept contracts? ftp-masters and all the mirror operators?
That sounds problematic...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpLfTYAJ4ZCD.pgp
Description: PGP signature