> Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the > > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs > > on this list to chime in: > > Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that > says that you must use the same license on derivative works. > Therefore, without reference to any other terms of the AFL, it is > trivially compatible with the GPL insofar as derivative works get > licensed under the GPL.
Russ, the AFL is not sublicensable. If you're using AFL code (or a derivative of AFL code), you need a license from the author, regardless of who you got that code from. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
