Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Rod Dixon]

I urge you to visit www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html; there you will
find a list of free osftware licenses that the FSF has determined to be
"incompatible" with the GPL. The designation, however, is not a
legal
determination, but, rather a matter of whether "restrictions" exist to
render a free software license as imposing a requirement that does not
exist in the GNU GPL. The question regarding who might sue whom for what
in response to an arguably impermissible use of a derivative work is an
entirely different matter.

Rod


On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, John Cowan wrote:

> Rod Dixon scripsit:
> >
> > You are both wrong. The designation of whether one license is incompatible
> > with the GPL says nothing about "violation." On FSF's website, they
> > designate some licenses as incompatible with the GPL. The question raised
> > was why the AFL is included in that list.
>
> It is whether the of creating a work that is derivative from two other works,
> W licensed under license Alpha, and X licensed under the GPL, is lawful
> that determines whether or not Alpha is incompatible with the GPL.
>
> --
> Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
> Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
> Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
>   -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, "Oxen of the Sun"       jcowan at reutershealth.com
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3