Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
From: Greg Pomerantz <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:50:25 -0500

> Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
>  > OK, guys, play with me one more round.  This time, let's do it in the
>  > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
>  > on this list to chime in:
> Nahhh.  None of this is necessary.  There's nothing in the AFL that
> says that you must use the same license on derivative works.
> Therefore, without reference to any other terms of the AFL, it is
> trivially compatible with the GPL insofar as derivative works get
> licensed under the GPL.

Russ, the AFL is not sublicensable. If you're using AFL code (or a derivative
of AFL code), you need a license from the author, regardless of who you got
that code from.


license-discuss archive is at