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 http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to become a part > of other software, including proprietary software, for any purpose > whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many details, > 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 source. > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any other > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh atsoever, > including to create derivative works. > > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible confusion > 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 reciprocity. > > > 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. The OSI > 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 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.rosenlaw.com > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3