Subject: RE: AFL - non-sublicenseable versus distributable
From: seterajunk@charter.net
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:22:39 -0000 (UTC)

Just out of interest, can you give me an idea of what this means and why
the change was made?  I will most likely just change the license version
I'm using, but I'm intrigued by the issue.

> 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
>
>