> > 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X > license is? > > i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL > applications use > > it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? > > You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; > he doesn't say exactly why, beyond noting that there is more > than one problem. The patent provision is the obvious > candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the IBMPL. Note > that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, but > there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind.
There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be incorporated into GPL-licensed works. I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3