Subject: RE: Academic Free License questions
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:47:12 -0800

> > 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X 
> license is?
> >    i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL 
> applications use
> >    it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
> 
> You would.  RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; 
> he doesn't say exactly why, beyond noting that there is more 
> than one problem.  The patent provision is the obvious 
> candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the IBMPL.  Note 
> that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, but 
> there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind.

There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be
incorporated into GPL-licensed works.  

I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL.
What have I missed?

/Larry Rosen

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3