I think this change is mostly-positive.  The only negative
aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous
revision.  AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between
brevity and precision.

May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last
license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the
applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable,
and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent
Action clause?

In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL
2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the
fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not
withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved.  I would like to
see them both in the list of approved licenses.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0

> To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC):
> Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby
submitted for
> your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of
Directors.  It can
> be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html.
> Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- 
short, generous and
> uncomplicated.  [See
> Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to
become a part
> of other software, including proprietary software, for any
> whatsoever.  Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many
> leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work
in an open
> source/proprietary world.
> The AFL fills in those gaps.  It addresses issues of
patent, trademark,
> warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition,
etc., in ways
> entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open
> AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any
> software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh
> including to create derivative works.
> This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible
> between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses
[see, for
> example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the
Open Software
> License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html].  Reciprocity
requires that
> any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as
the Original
> Work.  Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses
ought to be
> the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with
> Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that
the AFL does
> not contain a reciprocity provision.  A redlined
comparison of AFL2.0
> and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf.
When you
> suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that
language would read
> in the OSL, and vice versa.
> Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be
welcomed.  Feel
> free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss.
> board of directors needs your input before they decide
whether to
> approve these licenses.
> In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the
Academic Free
> License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache
licenses, and
> their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved
license list.
> /Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
> General counsel, Open Source Initiative
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> www.rosenlaw.com
> --
> license-discuss archive is at
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to