Academic Free License version 2.0
bruce_dodson at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 22 02:26:29 UTC 2003
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
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" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
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
> 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
> Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to
become a part
> of other software, including proprietary software, for any
> whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many
> 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
> warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition,
etc., in ways
> entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open
> AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any
> software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh
> including to create derivative works.
> This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible
> between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses
> example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the
> License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity
> any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as
> Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses
ought to be
> the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with
> 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.
> 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
> free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss.
> board of directors needs your input before they decide
> approve these licenses.
> In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the
> License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache
> their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved
> /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: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> license-discuss archive is at
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss