[License-review] Subject: Re: License Approval: FARCL-1.0

[Pamela Chestek]

Off the top of my head, the non-copyleft Academic Free License
<https://opensource.org/license/afl-3-0-php>. "Licensor agrees to provide a
machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with
each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes."

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:16 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

>
> On 2/13/2026 10:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, folks: don't we already have a very simple license that
> > nevertheless requires redistribution of source code already?  I feel
> > like there must be something that Bauti can adopt that's already
> > approved.
> >
> Well, all the copyleft ones.
>
> Which, more than half of the "Popular/Strong Community" licenses are:
> https://opensource.org/licenses?categories=popular-strong-community
>
> [I'm not sure what "very simple" means in this context but if you're
> going to make a license copyleft you tend to have to put more language
> in then a non-copyleft license]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260213/7b9e95b3/attachment.htm>