CPL

[Lawrence E. Rosen]

Compare the AFL with the (almost) identical Open Software License (OSL):
http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf

The omission of the reciprocity requirement from the AFL is intentional.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Linde [mailto:ael at star.le.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:31 AM
> To: 'Russell Nelson'
> Cc: 'OS Licensing'
> Subject: RE: CPL
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tony.  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
> > Sent: 24 February 2004 23:40
> > To: ael at star.le.ac.uk
> > Cc: OS Licensing
> > Subject: Re: CPL
> > 
> > Tony Linde writes:
> >  > The goal is that any of the software we develop can be
> > shared amongst the  > partner projects without limitations 
> > (save retaining copyright and  > contribution notices) AND 
> > that any code can be taken, adapted and used by  > any 
> > commercial concern without restriction (again save for 
> > copyright  > limitations). We don't want gnu-style licenses 
> > which force any extension of  > the code to be also opened up.
> > 
> > The best choice for this list of permissions is Larry Rosen's
> > Academic Free License.
> > 
> > --
> > --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
> 

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