Re: Academic Free License 2.1 -- free or not?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the
> > Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original
> > Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy
> > this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code
> > in an information repository [...]
> Weird, anyway: Licensor promises to distribute source, but it seems that
> there is no requirement for the *licensee* to do so...
I thought the point of the AFL was that it was effectively
attribution-only. So you don't have to give anyone source code
if you distribute an AFL-licensed binary.
> What about jurisdictions where a disclaimer of warranty is not effective
> (or, at least, not thoroughly enforceable)?
Almost all licenses have a "severability" clause that says
something like "if a provision is held unenforceable, then
please treat the license as if that provision isn't there."
This license only says "If any provision of this License is held
to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the
extent necessary to make it enforceable." I'm not sure if that does
the same thing.
> > The application of the United Nations
> > Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is
> > expressly excluded.
> Huh? Can a licence grant expressly exclude the application of a
In this case yes, because the convention in question says:
The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or,
subject to article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its
Besides, this convention is written to apply to sale of PHYSICAL
goods. No one knows what happens if you follow its clauses when
dealing with software, so everyone states it doesn't apply.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/