[clug] What can't be distributed with Linux?

[Andrew Boyd]

On 3/22/07, Pietro Abate <Pietro.Abate at anu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:51:28PM +1100, Andrew Boyd wrote:
> > "You can't use my code for commercial purposes" is easy... "you can't
> > use my code for commercial purposes unless you are a not-for-profit
> > organisation or indivisual" vs. "you can't use my code for commercial
> > purposes unless you send me a postcard" or "you can't use my code for
> > commercial purposes unless you republish it" is a bit trickier to
> > define (unless this is the only hierarchy, and I am sure it isn't).
>
> The creative common website allows you to do something similar...
> http://creativecommons.org/license/

Hi Pietro,

Creative Commons has a nice inheritance model that allows mix'n'match.
The trouble is that people insist on using other licences and there is
a certain resulting confusion :) My suggestion is that a sufficiently
well defined license definition language could identify licenses by
their characteristics - the characteristics could then possibly be
topic mapped such that developers/end users could easily interpret
(and thence follow) the composite license regime of a product/system
developed under several different license regimes. One such composite
product, as wiser heads than mine have pointed out, is Linux (taken as
a whole environment) :)

Cheers, Andrew