Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[John Cowan]

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:

> ***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and
> re-license it under any license, including licenses not containing the
> Mutual Defense provision ["to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> perform, distribute and/or sell copies of the Original Work and
> derivative works thereof,..."].  In fact, the AFL permits anyone to
> freely relicense their derivative work software under the GPL.

Do WHUT????

The powers granted by the AFL certainly don't include, at least not
explicitly, the power to relicense.  It is the general understanding
of the community that relicensing by anyone other than the copyright
owner is not allowed; if it were, what good would the GPL be, or the
Mutual Defense provision?  The tortfeasor would simply claim that he
had relicensed all your code under the MIT/X license.  (He might need to use
a dummy corporation.)

No, if you want people using the AFL to be able to relicense the code,
you need (as a practical matter if not a matter of law) to say so loud
and clear, and one has to wonder what good the Mutual Defense provision
is at all.

> So what's your problem?

Given *that* provision, which is tantamount to licensing under every license
existing or to be created later, RMS can't possibly have a problem.  The
rest of us might, however.

-- 
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                jcowan at reutershealth.com
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3