On 13/06/15 06:36, Walter Landry wrote:
Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor
thing.
I don't think requiring that
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:41:07 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think that
On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
within NOTICE files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any*
descriptive text identified as an Attribution
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:45:54 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
within NOTICE files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is
- Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
My personal conclusion is that this license includes non-free
restrictions and is also problematic with respect to Debian mirror
infrastructure.
My own analysis
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think that there is a broad consensus to accept the AFL as Free license,
in
9 matches
Mail list logo
