ael at star.le.ac.uk
Wed Feb 25 17:38:24 UTC 2004
Thanks Russell, that helps. I'll put the AFL and Lucent (Plan 9) licenses
before the IVOA Exec with a recommendation that we go for the AFL on the
basis of its simplicity and openness.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
> Sent: 25 February 2004 15:41
> To: ael at star.le.ac.uk
> Cc: 'OS Licensing'
> Subject: RE: CPL
> Tony Linde writes:
> > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler
> than the CPL (or > derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't
> specifically refer to the right to > commercially distribute
> the code or any derivative code without being > obliged to
> provide any source code. Is this, and similar, rights
> implicit in > their omission from the text?
> The license does not distinguish between commercial
> distributions or derivatives. It obligates no one to
> distribute source code.
> --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar.
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | Sweet!
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss