Thanks Russell, that helps. I'll put the AFL and Lucent (Plan 9) licenses before the IVOA Exec with a recommendation that we go for the AFL on the basis of its simplicity and openness.
Cheers, Tony. > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 25 February 2004 15:41 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'OS Licensing' > Subject: RE: CPL > > 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
