RE: Academic Free License version 2.0

2003-08-01 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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There's no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn.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

2003-07-21 Thread Bruce Dodson
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

2003-07-20 Thread Michel
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

2003-07-17 Thread John Cowan
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