Subject: RE: AFL - non-sublicenseable versus distributable
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:13:30 -0700

 Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:13:30 -0700
AFL version 2.1 is sublicenseable. See sections 1 and 2. /Larry

Lawrence Rosen 
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 
email: lrosen@rosenlaw.com 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: seterajunk@charter.net [mailto:seterajunk@charter.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:12 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: AFL - non-sublicenseable versus distributable
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have an open source project currently licensed under the AFL version
> 1.2.  I've recently received some interest from a corporation that would
> like to use my project, but they are concerned with the non-sublicenseable
> statement in the license.  Their lawyers feel that the distributable terms
> might cover them, but that they usually consider that a sublicense.
> 
> Can anyone explain to me what the term sublicense really means and what I
> would be giving up by allowing this company to sublicense my code?  The
> fact that it is called out as non-sublicenseable makes me hesitant to
> allow sublicense without further understanding the implications.
> 
> Thanks,
> Craig