George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -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
In general, please quote licence texts inline for ease of commentary. However, in this case, please check the archives for past references: The Academic Free License v2.1 was studied in October 2004. As far as I could tell, the problems were: - Grant of Source Code License requires shipping *all* available docs; - Same section apparently restricts the Licensor, which is bizarre; - Attribution Notices may be unmodifiable sections in all but name; - Acceptance and Termination is vague click-wrap - a lawyerbomb; - Termination For Patent Action is too broadly contaminating; - Venue is a pain, requiring everyone involved to be ready to travel; - Governing Law may pull in almost all the world's copyright laws!; - Attorneys Fees seeks to modify normal jurisdiction practice; - it's a common-law contract more than a licence: buyer beware! AFL is non-copyleft, so I'd suggest using new BSD, MIT/X11 or zlib instead (rather than the GPL, which is copyleft). Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
