Academic Free License questions
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Nov 21 20:33:02 UTC 2002
Havoc Pennington scripsit:
> 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is?
> i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use
> it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say
exactly why, beyond noting that there is more than one problem. The patent
provision is the obvious candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the
IBMPL. Note that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2,
but there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind.
> 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source
> file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there...
As the AFL's preamble says, just put the line:
Licensed under the Academic Free License version 1.2
just after the copyright notice.
We call nothing profound jcowan at reutershealth.com
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss