Academic Free License questions
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Nov 21 22:59:22 UTC 2002
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be
> incorporated into GPL-licensed works.
Clause 6 of the GPL says:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
But if such a work is also derived from AFL-licensed code, it *does*
impose further restrictions: in particular, someone who is suing for
patent infringement doesn't get to do the copyright-protected things
with the program. So the AFL and GPL are incompatible.
In RMS's writeup on the IBMPL, he implies that patent poison pills are
not Bad Things, but they are incompatible.
Looks like my library will have to be dual-licensed AFL+GPL. Annoying.
> I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL.
> What have I missed?
and scroll down a bit if necessary.
One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss