Larry,
As author of the AFL v3.0, can you comment on some concerns raised
about it by Francesco Poli at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00082.html
?
Francesco's message is somewhat long, so here is the most important
concern. (I read the relevant section of your book,
Peter Samuel asked:
Would this then mean it is inappropriate for Debian to distribute
AFL-v3.0-licensed content?
Not to worry. What Debian already does is a reasonable effort under the
circumstances. Actually, Debian is super-reasonable in the FOSS context.
The objective of that provision in
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:23:01 -0700 Lawrence Rosen wrote:
[...]
As long as Debian continues its reasonable -- indeed commendable! --
procedures for the distribution of FOSS software, nobody on the AFL 3.0
bandwagon will complain.
Peter,
thanks for starting to deal with this bug.
However,
[Francesco Poli]
However, asking for clarifications to the license author is not
necessarily helpful: the reply you obtained from L. Rosen clarifies
*his own* interpretation of one unclear clause of the AFL v3.0.
I know the distinction. But he is a lawyer with significant experience
in IP
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:11:12 -0500 Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Francesco Poli]
However, asking for clarifications to the license author is not
necessarily helpful: the reply you obtained from L. Rosen clarifies
*his own* interpretation of one unclear clause of the AFL v3.0.
I know the
5 matches
Mail list logo
