Bruce, thanks for your comments. My replies are inserted below. /Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Academic Free License version 2.0 > > 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. Thanks for the "mostly-positive" comment. :-) I'm sorry you find the license too long. If it takes a certain number of words to be clear about what an academic-style license should do, then that's the breaks. If you can suggest briefer ways of saying things, or fewer things to say, then help me by suggesting them. I point out, however, that the AFL and OSL are already a full page shorter than the GPL. > 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? Yet one more license? :-) > 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. There's no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn. But I strongly encourage using the latest version. It's up to the licensors, really. /Larry Rosen > ----- 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