* Francesco Poli:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 +0000 Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli writes ("Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"):
>> > I am seeking help on bug #689919.
>>
>> I disagree with all of your objections to #689919.
>
> Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point rebuttal
> of my license analysis?
<https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00082.html>
I think it is fair to interpret “available documentation” in the
context of the Original Work and the modifications made. It is
similar to the build scripts requirement in the GPLv3.
You have confused “Licensor” and the licensee (“You”).
Clause 5 is mostly a NOP, and certainly not comparable at all to the
Afferro GPL because the AFL is not a copyleft license.
Clause 6 can be misused, but we can deal with that if ad when it
happens.
Clause 9 is indeed unclear. Based on Larry Rosen's comments, it may
refer to the acceptance of the umbrella/aggregation license terms
during the installation process of some distributions.
Your remaining points are controversial (you already said so).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87h9yc3qe7....@mid.deneb.enyo.de
