Subject: RE: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:20:18 -0700

I also have a biased opinion.  I'm mostly in agreement with Brian.  But
how about suggesting that the government license be the Academic Free
License (AFL), which is fully compatible with the Open Software License
(OSL), the GPL, and other proprietary and open source licenses.  

I think if you take everyone's mind off the GPL, maybe they won't
realize they're doing things that can help the open source community.

These two licenses (the AFL and OSL) are particularly important to us
because they also address the patent problem.  

For the latest versions, go to:

   AFL: www.rosenlaw.com/afl1.2.html

   OSL: www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:brian@collab.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:42 PM
> To: Benjamin J. Tilly 
> Cc: fsb@crynwr.com
> Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
> 
> 
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly  wrote:
> > This movement is specifically aimed at keeping the
> > government from distributing things like its security 
> enhancements for 
> > the Linux kernel.
> 
> I don't support the intent at all, but I wonder if there's a 
> way the gov't could release those enhancements BSD-licensed 
> rather than GPL-licensed. That way the Linux redistributors 
> would have no problem incorporating those enhancements, *and* 
> those enhancements would be available to, say, the FreeBSD 
> developers to also consider using.
> 
> 	Brian
> 
> 
>