Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Mark Rafn
dagon at dagon.net
Thu Mar 13 03:06:08 UTC 2003
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
> > care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
> > by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
> > under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
>
> Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your parties
> straight. I challenge you to find any copyright infringement in
> anything I suggested!!!!
Jimmy is none of the above, he's the author of X. Sorry, I didn't want to
dig through the archives to find the previous example. Here it is:
>> Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B
>> comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and
>> distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL.
>> No surprises for B. He's read the AFL and the GPL and he understands
>> that he's doing what's allowed.
I'm not sure exactly what W+X is, whether it's mere aggregation of W and
X, or whether it's work derivative of both.
Let's use WX to be a derivative work of both W and X, whether it be by
linking, copying parts of code, or whatnot. WX is not distributable by
anyone, as it cannot meet both the GPL and the AFL.
--
Mark Rafn dagon at dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list