InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License (ACT / ACTL)"

[AwesomeTux]

Well, it seems after around a week that InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License (ACT / ACTL)" isn't going to happen.

I've been in talks with the "Heads of Development" at InaTux.com, the people in charge of ACT software license. Me and like seven more people helped write a software license to be used in addition to other software licenses, like the GNU GPL.

The ACT license was going to be a software license to "amend" the GPL's principles so to speak, in that it restricted derivative software works to retain the same naming terminology that the original author chose for it.

And for a weeks work the license made good progress, but after a talk with Richard Stallman, InaTux said development is to be discontinued.

So I thought I might share the license in it's latest and final state.

************************************************** ************************

Author's Choice of Terminology License (ACT / ACTL)

ACTL is a software*license that*ensures all works, when distributed
or redistributed, either derivative or otherwise, must retain the same
naming terminology that the original author chose for his/hers*work, as
well as attribute the same license to the works be they derivative or not.

For example, the Debian distribution prefers the term GNU/Linux opposed
to the term "Linux" when describing their operating system, and other
distributions. Free Software apposed to Open Source Software as well.
Debian licensed under such a license, in addition to a GPL license v1, v2,
or v3, would have ensured Ubuntu be referred to as "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" by
Canonical Ltd.

This license is intended to be used as a "sub-license" or additional
license to licenses like the GPL, MIT License, GFDL, zlib License, LGPL, etc.


Start Of Author's Choice Of Terminology License (ACT*or ACTL)

Section 1:

All software, programs, scripts, text -- including*manuals -- etc,*when
distributed or redistributed, derivative or not, under this, the Author's
Choice of Terminology License (ACT*or ACTL)*must retain the original author's
choice in terminology, including for example the term GNU+Linux opposed to
the term Linux,*or Free Software opposed to Open Source Software, or vise*
versa, and must refrain from using any other term than that chosen by the
original author, by attribution in the software.

Derivative works being "work based on the software" either a work containing
the software or portions of it, verbatim or with modifications and/or translated
into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation
in the term "derivative".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

When you modify your copy or copies of the software or any portion of it, you
thus form a work based on the software.

All software, programs, scripts, text -- including*manuals -- etc,*when
distributed or redistributed, derivative or not, under this, the ACTL, you must
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright
notice of the ACTL; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License; and
give any other recipients of the software a copy of this License along
with the software.

All specified terminology to be used in either the software, programs,
scripts, text -- including*manuals --*etc, or in the process of marketing such
works, in television advertisements, on web sites, in documentation, CDs, DVDs,
and all other forms of hard and/or soft copies of such works for distribution,
must be retained and attributed to the works, whether the software is
derivative or not.

End of Section 1

Section 2:

This license is not retroactive, though, if or when software on which
distributed, redistributed, and/or derivative software is based, attributes or
in any other way uses this, the Author's Choice of Terminology License (ACT*or
ACTL) all distributed, redistributed, and/or derivative software works later
based on such software must follow Section 1 of this license.

End of Section 2

<ACTL website> may publish revised and/or new versions of the Author's
Choice of Terminology License from time to time. Such new versions will be
similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address
new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the software
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later
version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of
that version or of any later version published by <ACTL website>. If the
software does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any
version ever published by the <ACTL website>.


End of ACT License


Applying this license to your works:

<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

This <program/text/script/etc> is to be referred to as <free/open source>
software, not <open-source/free> software, or any other term that is not the
term <free/open source>. This <program/text/script/etc> is to be referred to as
for the operating system <GNU+Linux/Linux/Windows/Mac OS X> and no other term
that is not the term <GNU+Linux/Linux/Windows/Mac OS X>.

You should have received a copy of the Author's Choice of Terminology License
along with this software. If not, see <http://www.<ACTL website>/>.

************************************************** ************************

Good Day.

[AwesomeTux]

By the way, the license can be read and commented on, here: http://www.inatux.com/actl/

Thank you.

[ushimitsudoki]

Is there a formal Rationale for this license?

If not, is there some discussion on the thinking behind it?

Maybe a link to rms' comments at least?

To be brutally honest, at a first reading it strikes me as incredibly stupid and pointless, but I am willing to read some justification for it.

[Sef]

moved to community cafe

[AwesomeTux]

Is there a formal Rationale for this license?

It's in the summary of the license, at the top.


If not, is there some discussion on the thinking behind it?

The thinking is to ensure the promotion of the principles of the author. Such as the principles behind Free Software, and the GNU operating system. Or the "principles" of Open Source software and "Linux."

It _would_ ensure that when something like the Debian operating system was made, licensed, and than eventually forked into Ubuntu, that Ubuntu would have to call itself "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" or whatever the Debian developers would have licensed the OS as to be called.


Maybe a link to rms' comments at least?

They were kept private, I emailed InaTux, they just said that he said that the license would conflict with the GPL, so it could not be sublicensed with the GPL. So really, what's the point?


To be brutally honest, at a first reading it strikes me as incredibly stupid and pointless, but I am willing to read some justification for it.

That's because you don't fully understand/care.

[ushimitsudoki]

It's in the summary of the license, at the top.
No it's not. A formal Rationale looks more like this (http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale).



The thinking is to ensure the promotion of the principles of the author. Such as the principles behind Free Software, and the GNU operating system. Or the "principles" of Open Source software and "Linux."

It _would_ ensure that when something like the Debian operating system was made, licensed, and than eventually forked into Ubuntu, that Ubuntu would have to call itself "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" or whatever the Debian developers would have licensed the OS as to be called.I was looking for discussion. I understand the purpose, I was just interested in the reasoning that convinced people that:

A. The purpose was worthwhile, and,
B. This license would achieve it.

Now that you expand on this point, I would also add:
C. That the purpose of the license matches the principle behind Free Software, Open Source, and "Linux".

You may be surprised, but I don't think this license is at all in the Free Software Spirit. In fact, I think it is antithetical to the principles behind Free Software, Open Source, and Linux.



They were kept private, I emailed InaTux, they just said that he said that the license would conflict with the GPL, so it could not be sublicensed with the GPL. So really, what's the point?
Hey, you posted about it. And I happen to put a lot of weight on what rms says and how he says it. If he bothered to comment on one of my ideas, I'd sure take it into account.



That's because you don't fully understand/care.
You're right, I don't fully understand. I don't understand why anyone would bother. Hence asking for a Rationale or discussion.

It is in this way, when a man encounters a situation he doesn't understand, he seeks to educate himself.

I didn't mean to personally insult you, and although I understand the "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument I think the idea of a license to attempt to enforce it is ... ill-conceived.

[AwesomeTux]

No it's not. A formal Rationale looks more like this (http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale).

I was looking for discussion. I understand the purpose, I was just interested in the reasoning that convinced people that:

A. The purpose was worthwhile, and,
B. This license would achieve it.

Now that you expand on this point, I would also add:
C. That the purpose of the license matches the principle behind Free Software, Open Source, and "Linux".

We both know the ACT license goes somewhat against the Free Software Foundation's principles, I think InaTux knows this too.

InaTux has posted somewhat of a Rationale to the ACTL web page.
http://www.inatux.com/actl/rationale.txt

Just to let you know. If you are interested in it.