Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Andy Tai]

--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as
> "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in
> the GPL.

IYWO (In your wise opinion)

> Regardless, the explicit exclusion of a trademark
> license and the mutual
> defense provision are not going to disappear from
> the AFL.

Who asked you to make them disappear?

> 
> I've assured you, as the license author, that the
> AFL-licensor doesn't
> care if his work is incorporated into a GPL-licensed
> or Apache-licensed
> work.  The GPL/Apache-licensor who includes
> AFL-licensed components also
> shouldn't care; his work is licensed as he wishes,
> under the
> GPL/Apache-license, without warranty of any kind. 
> Neither of these
> parties would ever sue each other.  After all,
> they're both into free
> software!
>
Lawyers told us to follow only the license text, only
that is authoritative. Everything else is just
opinions.  Or every time I hear lawyers speak, they
say this.  Do I get this wrong?
 

> Bottom line: I can assure you, as the license
> author, that the AFL is
> intended to be used for software that can be
> incorporated into
> GPL-licensed software, and I will almost certainly
> so advise my clients:

Why don't you put that explicitly into the license
text of the AFL (allowing derivative works to be
distributed under the GPL (or license X), and when
license X and AFL conflicts, the former's terms should
be followed)?

> 
> 
> ***** If you combine AFL-licensed software with
> GPL-licensed software,
> ***** and license the result under the GPL,
> ***** nobody will ever sue you for doing so!
> 
Or in the AFL there should be statements to that
effect "I will not sue you if you put my AFL code
under the GPL"

> I guess that's compatibility in fact, if not in RMS'
> mind.
> 
> If RMS continues to believe that the licenses are
> incompatible, he
> should either change the GPL or stand out of the way
> of progress.  There

Hmm... "Progress", "Get out of my way", huh? There
seems to be something deeper at work here than just
arguing the compatibility issues.

> is no possible reason to assume that the GPL states
> all the important
> rules of behavior in the open source community or
> expresses each
> licensor's view of what is truly free software.  No
> license ever could.

Not even the FSF has claimed that.

> But this obstinate refusal by FSF to declare
> compatibility of the AFL,
> or to change the GPL to allow compatibility, is
> encouraging the creation
> of islands of free software that people erroneously
> think cannot be
> re-used in GPL-licensed software.  That will be our
> community's loss.  
>
Clearly many people disagree with your interpretation
that AFL is GPL compatible. That should include the
FSF's lawyers.  So, we have a case where lawyers have
different opinions!

For anyone who writes AFL code, if he wishes to allow
use in GPL programs, he can dual license under the GPL
and the AFL.  Intent explicitly expressed. Problem
solved.  
On the other hand, GPL is an old license. AFL is a new
license, with new provisions. Not to mention its big
brother, the OSL.  Who is creating islands here?
 
> /Larry Rosen
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3