Academic Free License questions

[Bruce Dodson]

Or, if you don't want to license under GPL, you could dual-license under
another GPL-compatible license.  Dual licensing always confuses me though:
which set of rights am I using?  That determines which set of requirements
will apply.


Question: How does the "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" fuse with a
dual-licensing situation?  I don't know if I'll be able to word by question
very coherently, but here's what I'm driving at:

Suppose I have a piece of software which is licensed under the user's choice
between AFL and a tweaked ZPL 2.  The Zope licese is GPL-compatible, and
obviously if someone sues me with an allegation that the software breaks
your patent, they can keep using my software by virtue of the rights granted
in the Zope license.  But, having made that allegation, are they entitled to
use other software which is published solely under AFL / OSL?

Thanks,
Bruce

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
To: "Havoc Pennington" <hp at redhat.com>
Cc: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Academic Free License questions


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