Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:00:35 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > I thought the point of the AFL was that it was effectively > > attribution-only. So you don't have to give anyone source code > > if you distribute an AFL-licensed binary. > > Indeed. This license looks like a non-copyleft (apart from the fact that > it isn't free, hence asking whether it's a copyleft is a bit > pointless...)
As I understand it (from Rosen's book) the point of the AFL was to be the non-copyleft version of the OSL. Essentially, they're the BSD and GPL licenses written in conservative legalese. And Rosen designed them to be contracts rather than unilateral grants of permission. > OK, but both parties have to agree to exclude it: so this license smells > more like a common-law-contract, rather than a unilateral grant. The > licensee has to give up the possibility to have the Convention applied, > in order to obtain the rights attached to this `license'. You're right. The license is intended to be a common-law contract. Hence the phrases about assent. So the idea is that the licensee has agreed to everything in the license. But I'm not sure if giving up the benefits of this convention is a reason to make the license non-free. When accepting the terms of the GPL, I also must give up certain rights about warranties that I normally expect to have. Sorry about the cc. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
