RE: Academic Free License version 2.0
Bruce, thanks for your comments. My replies are inserted below. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Academic Free License version 2.0 > > I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative > aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous > revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between > brevity and precision. Thanks for the "mostly-positive" comment. :-) I'm sorry you find the license too long. If it takes a certain number of words to be clear about what an academic-style license should do, then that's the breaks. If you can suggest briefer ways of saying things, or fewer things to say, then help me by suggesting them. I point out, however, that the AFL and OSL are already a full page shorter than the GPL. > May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last > license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the > applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable, > and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent > Action clause? Yet one more license? :-) > In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL > 2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the > fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not > withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved. I would like to > see them both in the list of approved licenses. There's no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn. But I strongly encourage using the latest version. It's up to the licensors, really. /Larry Rosen > - Original Message - > From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM > Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0 > > > > To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): > > > > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby > submitted for > > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of > Directors. It can > > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. > > > > Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- > short, generous and > > uncomplicated. [See > http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] > > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to > become a part > > of other software, including proprietary software, for any > purpose > > whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many > details, > > leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work > in an open > > source/proprietary world. > > > > The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of > patent, trademark, > > warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, > etc., in ways > > entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open > source. > > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any > other > > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh > atsoever, > > including to create derivative works. > > > > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible > confusion > > between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses > [see, for > > example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the > Open Software > > License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity > requires that > > any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as > the Original > > Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses > ought to be > > the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with > reciprocity. > > > > > > Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that > the AFL does > > not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined > comparison of AFL2.0 > > and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. > When you > > suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that > language would read > > in the OSL, and vice versa. > > > > Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be > welcomed. Feel > > free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. > The OSI > > board of directors needs your input before they decide > whether to > > approve these licenses. > > > > In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the > Academic Free > > License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache > licenses, and > > their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved > license list. > > > > /Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm > > General counsel, Open Source Initiative > > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 > > 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.rosenlaw.com > > > > -- > > 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
Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between brevity and precision. May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable, and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent Action clause? In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL 2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved. I would like to see them both in the list of approved licenses. - Original Message - From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0 > To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): > > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. > > Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- short, generous and > uncomplicated. [See http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to become a part > of other software, including proprietary software, for any purpose > whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many details, > leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work in an open > source/proprietary world. > > The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of patent, trademark, > warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, etc., in ways > entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open source. > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any other > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh atsoever, > including to create derivative works. > > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible confusion > between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses [see, for > example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the Open Software > License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity requires that > any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as the Original > Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to be > the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with reciprocity. > > > Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does > not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 > and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you > suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read > in the OSL, and vice versa. > > Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be welcomed. Feel > free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. The OSI > board of directors needs your input before they decide whether to > approve these licenses. > > In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the Academic Free > License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses, and > their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved license list. > > /Lawrence Rosen > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm > General counsel, Open Source Initiative > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 > 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.rosenlaw.com > > -- > 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
Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read in the OSL, and vice versa. I really appreciate this change to the license. It makes comparing the AFL and OSL very easy. The brief description of its purpose, and a comparison of reciprocity is also welcome. I'll happily use either one, and any agreed modificaitons, in some of my own software. Michel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. This license is obviously open source, a big win, and it's nice that it tracks the OSL. I think with these versions of the OSL and AFL we are in a strong position to respond to corporate types who come to us with their complex licenses "Have you checked out the OSL and AFL version 2.0? They probably do everything your lawyers *and* your developers want." -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Academic Free License version 2.0
To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- short, generous and uncomplicated. [See http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to become a part of other software, including proprietary software, for any purpose whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many details, leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work in an open source/proprietary world. The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of patent, trademark, warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, etc., in ways entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open source. AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any other software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose whatsoever, including to create derivative works. This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible confusion between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses [see, for example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the Open Software License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity requires that any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as the Original Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to be the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with reciprocity. Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read in the OSL, and vice versa. Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be welcomed. Feel free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. The OSI board of directors needs your input before they decide whether to approve these licenses. In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the Academic Free License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses, and their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved license list. /Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm General counsel, Open Source Initiative 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
