"Clark C. Evans" <c...@clarkevans.com> writes: > > If you could prepare the work you're interested in packaging, and > > the actual set of license terms, the discussion could get more > > concrete. > > I'm asking something fairly concrete here already: > > | Would Debian consider a "Free Platform License" (FPL) derived from > | the AGPLv3, but with the "System Library" exception removed (as well > | as the GNU specific prologue)? > > Reducing this to an actual license text is quite a bit of effort -- > especially if it weren't considered.
Nevertheless, that burden is on whoever wants to present a work for consideration. You're not going to get a general ruling on general terms in the absence of an actual work with actual terms – partly because we don't do rulings here, and partly because the legal codes make it too difficult to talk in generalities. To improve signal-to-noise ratio, we far prefer discussion in this forum to be on *actual* works with *actual* license terms. -- \ “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all | `\ others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking | _o__) power called an idea” —Thomas Jefferson, 1813-08-13 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zkfj48f9....@benfinney.id.au
