Subject: RE: Academic Free License version 2.0
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:21:02 -0700

Bruce, thanks for your comments.  My replies are inserted below.  /Larry
Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:bruce_dodson@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:26 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
> 
> I think this change is mostly-positive.  The only negative
> aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous 
> revision.  AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between 
> brevity and precision.

Thanks for the "mostly-positive" comment.  :-)  

I'm sorry you find the license too long.  If it takes a certain number
of words to be clear about what an academic-style license should do,
then that's the breaks.  If you can suggest briefer ways of saying
things, or fewer things to say, then help me by suggesting them.

I point out, however, that the AFL and OSL are already a full page
shorter than the GPL.

> May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last
> license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the 
> applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable, 
> and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent 
> Action clause?

Yet one more license?  :-)

> In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL
> 2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the
> fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not 
> withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved.  I would like to 
> see them both in the list of approved licenses.

There's no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn.  But I strongly
encourage using the latest version.  It's up to the licensors, really.

/Larry Rosen

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM
> Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0
> 
> 
> > To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC):
> >
> > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby
> submitted for
> > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of
> Directors.  It can
> > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html.
> >
> > Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model --
> short, generous and
> > uncomplicated.  [See
> http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php]
> > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to
> become a part
> > of other software, including proprietary software, for any
> purpose
> > whatsoever.  Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many
> details,
> > leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work
> in an open
> > source/proprietary world.
> >
> > The AFL fills in those gaps.  It addresses issues of
> patent, trademark,
> > warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition,
> etc., in ways
> > entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open
> source.
> > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any
> other
> > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh
> atsoever,
> > including to create derivative works.
> >
> > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible
> confusion
> > between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses
> [see, for
> > example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the
> Open Software
> > License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html].  Reciprocity
> requires that
> > any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as
> the Original
> > Work.  Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses
> ought to be
> > the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with
> reciprocity.
> >
> >
> > Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that
> the AFL does
> > not contain a reciprocity provision.  A redlined
> comparison of AFL2.0
> > and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf.
> When you
> > suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that
> language would read
> > in the OSL, and vice versa.
> >
> > Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be
> welcomed.  Feel
> > free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss.
> The OSI
> > board of directors needs your input before they decide
> whether to
> > approve these licenses.
> >
> > In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the
> Academic Free
> > License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache
> licenses, and
> > their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved
> license list.
> >
> > /Lawrence Rosen
> > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
> > General counsel, Open Source Initiative
> > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> > 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> > email: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> > www.rosenlaw.com
> >
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> 

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