Academic Free License (was: Re: RFS: The bobcat library, stealth and bisonc++)
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]
Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright
Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to
distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody
proves me wrong.
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Yes, it is pretty obvious.
--
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]
Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
George Danchev a écrit :
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright
Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to
distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody
proves me wrong.
Dual licensing is the best way to increase the liberty of the license.
Users can choice to use the best license for them, and if all
contributions are under the same dual license, the whole source code
will be compatible with both license. Double licensing under two
incompatible license is the only interesting practice, because they
become compatible. If you choose to dual license two compatible license
(LGPL/GPL; BSD/GPL), it is useless because the compatibility already
exist. Sorry for my bad English.
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Yes, it is pretty obvious.
...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Academic Free License (was: Re: RFS: The bobcat library, stealth and bisonc++)
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]
Re: Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
Dual licensing is certainly workable for incompatible licenses, example MYSQL using GPL and Commercial licenses
