Compare the AFL with the (almost) identical Open Software License (OSL): http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf
The omission of the reciprocity requirement from the AFL is intentional. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Linde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:31 AM > To: 'Russell Nelson' > Cc: 'OS Licensing' > Subject: RE: CPL > > > 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 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
