Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Andy Tai]

So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?

So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be 
bound by conditions of the "AFL" but by my terms only?


--- John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com> wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> 
> > But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not
> really relicensing.  This
> > new one-byte-different derivative work is *not*
> under an Apache license -
> > one who picks up that code and follows only the
> Apache license may find
> > themselves violating your AFL license.  The
> license on my *modification*
> > (that whole byte) may be Apache licensed, but not
> the bits derived from
> > your original work.
> 
> Nope.  The creator of a derivative work under
> license is the copyright owner
> of the derivative work as a whole.  He cannot, of
> course, prevent other people
> from making derivative works based on the same
> original, but he can certainly
> defend his own copyright.  
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3