Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler than the CPL (or derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't specifically refer to the right to commercially distribute the code or any derivative code without being obliged to provide any source code. Is this, and similar, rights implicit in their omission from the text?
Thanks, Tony. > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 February 2004 23:40 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: OS Licensing > Subject: Re: CPL > > Tony Linde writes: > > The goal is that any of the software we develop can be > shared amongst the > partner projects without limitations > (save retaining copyright and > contribution notices) AND > that any code can be taken, adapted and used by > any > commercial concern without restriction (again save for > copyright > limitations). We don't want gnu-style licenses > which force any extension of > the code to be also opened up. > > The best choice for this list of permissions is Larry Rosen's > Academic Free License. > > -- > --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | Sweet! > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
