I am a musician, a taker of pictures, a rider of bikes, a father to plants, and roller of skateboards (no tricks). And I advocate Free Software and GNU/Linux.

 

ACTL Rationale

http://www.inatux.com/actl/rationale.txt

Author’s Choice of Terminology License. Rationale, hardly, but a few points I’d like to write about.

First

"Because the Debian developers prefer the name GNU/Linux opposed to just "Linux" they will call Debian a "GNU/Linux Distribution" and because Canonical prefers the name Linux as opposed to "GNU/Linux" they will call Ubuntu a "Linux Distribution." This is generally because they want to make everyone happy, by referring to the Distros by terms those whom advocate for them prefer."

"This behavior is more appropriate than referring to all Distros as "Linux" despite what the authors prefer their work be called."

"The Author’s Choice of Terminology License, with much more needed development, would ensure this behavior, by restricting the distributor of the author’s software to the terminology chosen for it, either GNU/Linux, Linux, or even Lignux, Free Software or Open Source."

This puts the ACTL in a totally different perspective for me. I originally thought it was all about restricting the user to call the operating system GNU/Linux, which I liked, but it was not a very good reason by itself for a license.

Second

"Note: All development has stopped on the ACT license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL version 2. To sub-license the GNU GPL version 2 with the ACT license will automatically terminate your rights as a result of section 1 and section 4 under the GNU GPL version 2."

This is true, and I can see why it was discontinued.

Third

"Unless compatibility with the GNU GPL changes, the ACT license is discontinued."

Which I found interesting. Because section 4 of the GNU GPL version 3 doesn’t restrict sub-licensing with the GPL, and I don’t believe version 3 does at all. In fact it allows for “Additional Terms” including non-permissive additions.

So would the ACT license be incompatible with GPL version 3? I’ll have to research this a little. Please comment if you’d like, any information would be appreciated.

  1. jakedth posted this

Blog comments powered by Disqus

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (3.0 Unported or any later version).
Excluding HTML, CSS, and third-party graphics / trademarks.