Academic Free License

[Rod Dixon]

Thanks Larry, in light of your responses, I think the AFL achieves the
goals you set out to accomplish.

- Rod


On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

> Hi Rod,
>
> Thanks as always for your cogent questions and comments.  Well worthy of
> a reply....
>
> > Larry, I like the simplicity of the AFL, but there are two
> > general issues I would like to raise as questions more than
> > an expression of an opinion.
>
> > 1) Why copyright the license
> > text?  Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable,
> > does the accompanying notice introduce confusion? Aside from
> > the well-intentioned insistence on the adoption of the "list
> > of conditions," for distribution of software with the AFL, is
> > it consistent with the objectives of open source to constrain
> > (withhold permission for) modifications of the license? I
> > have always puzzled over whether a suit for copyright
> > infringement of the license text accomplishes anything that a
> > software license does not accomplish in the context of open source???
>
> I personally have no intention of ultimately holding copyright in that
> license.  Perhaps an organization like Creative Commons, or an academic
> licensing organization, might accept copyright assignment from me of the
> Academic Free License (or an improved version of it).  What I am
> concerned about is having multiple versions circulating around the web
> while we discuss and improve upon this draft.  There is no effective
> means other than the copyright law to prevent people from circulating
> non-redlined modifications of my draft license that otherwise might
> become self-effectuating by a simple notice in software.  So, which
> draft of the Academic Free License is currently the "official" one?
> "Mine!" under the authority of the Copyright Act.
>
> "Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable...."  You may well
> raise that important issue.  Copyrightability is a problem for any
> document that purports to both have utility (and legal effects) and is
> expressive.  Can a software license be copyrighted?  Can a set of rules
> for calculating your income tax?  Can a specification for software be
> copyrighted if the only purpose of the document is to permit
> implementation of that specification?  Can a published technical
> standard be copyrighted so as to prevent implementers from modifying
> their programs?  Can a standard that is adopted as a statute by
> reference be copyrighted?  (See the important Veeck case.)  Why don't we
> take these questions to the cni-copyright list where attorneys can
> debate this to their hearts' content?  In the meantime, I elected to
> claim copyright in the Academic Free License to guarantee some semblance
> of version control while people suggest improvements.
>
> > 2) The AFL seems to be targeted for those licensors who need
> > an open source license from Original Licensor
> > ----->to---->licensee, but not necessarily subsequent
> > end-users.  Is this correct or, does the 2 "list of
> > conditions" clauses ostensibly impose a copyleft constraint?
>
> The Academic Free License is not intended to impose copyleft.  I make no
> political statement here.  I would personally probably prefer a license
> that imposed source code reciprocity for all derivative works.  What I
> was trying to do in the Academic Free License was merely to clean up
> some problems I perceived to exist in the BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and Apache
> licenses.
>
> Under the AFL, Software is fully licensed for the creation of derivative
> works that may be either proprietary or open source.  The original
> copyright notices in the Software must be displayed on all copies and
> derivative works.  Other than that, there is no requirement to publish
> source code of derivative works (or of copies).
>
> The license is intended to be available directly from the licensor to
> anyone who obtains a copy of the Software.  A sublicense is not
> required.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3