Tony Linde writes: > 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?
The license does not distinguish between commercial distributions or derivatives. It obligates no one to distribute source code. -- --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
