CPL

[Tony Linde]

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.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----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