On Friday 07 July 2006 18:11, Frank B. Brokken wrote: > Hi List, Hello Lists, Frank,
-legal, Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at: http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php this will serve as a future reference as well > On June 30th, I sent in RFS's for my two programs Stealth and Bisonc++, > as well as an RFS for my bobcat library, on which Stealth and Bisonc++ > depend. I'm still in doubt with "Academic Free License v. 2.1". While I didn't spot any blatant DFSG-incompatibilities, I still have some issues with that license. First - it is GPL incompatible: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses that means that your bobcat library could not be used by GPL'ed programs. Second - #11 - choice-of-venue/choice of law - I doubt there are people interested to travel all around the world to the licensor jurisdiction (in case of legal claims), which in some cases could be pretty, khm.. exotic. This is a little scary ;-) I think that by making things perfectly clear (as of licensing under already proven free software license) you'll get much more users and won't frighten prospective sponsors. Anyways (as you wrote in a separate message to me) you are the copyright holder and you have no problems to re-license it under the GPL. So, if I were you, I stay on the safe side. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
