Subject: RE: AFL questions
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:07:35 -0700

Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> I am looking at Academic Free License version 2.1

If it matters, I have deprecated versions of AFL and OSL prior to 3.0. This
is not accurately reflected on the OSI license list (by category), but I've
always thought those categories were somewhat foolish and useless anyway for
choosing a good license.

Regarding AFL, OSL and NOSL 3.0, I recommend that you read
http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf. 

/Larry


Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
Apache Software Foundation, board member and counsel (www.apache.org) 
Open Web Foundation, board member (www.openwebfoundation.org) 
Stanford University, Instructor in Law
Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property
Law (Prentice Hall 2004)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy C. Reed [mailto:reed@reedmedia.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:40 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: AFL questions
> 
> I am looking at Academic Free License version 2.1 (which is a choice
> for
> dbus).
> 
> What do these clauses mean?
> 
> d) to perform the Original Work publicly; and
> 
> e) to display the Original Work publicly.
> 
> (Note that other clauses mention the "Derivative Works".)
> 
> Does this mean I may not use the derivative work outside of in-house? I
> may not use a derivative work in any example that is viewed (like a
> screenshot or video)?
> 
> Clause 3 includes "Licensor hereby 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."
> 
> At first read, I thought this was a "copyleft" license. But it doesn't
> indicate the derivative work. So you don't have to make your changes
> public, but you do have to provide the original code. (Clause 6
> mentions
> source code for derivative works -- but does not say it has to be
> shared.)
> 
> Clauses 2 and 4 appear to conflict in regards to granting and not
> granting patent rights.
> 
> Clause 9 says you should make a reasonable effort to get recipients of
> the derivative work to state their agreement with the license. How?
> 
> (I also looked at AFL version 3.0.)
> 
>   Jeremy C. Reed
> 
> echo 'EhZ[h ^jjf0%%h[[Zc[Z_W$d[j%Xeeai%ZW[ced#]dk#f[d]k_d%' | \
>   tr            '#-~'            '\-.-{'