Subject: RE: CPL
From: Russell Nelson <>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:40:39 -0500

Tony Linde writes:
 > Thanks for that, Russell. The AFL certainly looks simpler than the CPL (or
 > derivative Lucent PL). It doesn't specifically refer to the right to
 > commercially distribute the code or any derivative code without being
 > obliged to provide any source code. Is this, and similar, rights implicit in
 > their omission from the text?

The license does not distinguish between commercial distributions or
derivatives.  It obligates no one to distribute source code.

--My blog is at  | Coding in Python
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     is like
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | FWD# 404529 via VOIP  |     Sweet!
license-discuss archive is at