[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Academic Free License 1.1




"Joey Hess" <joeyh@debian.org> wrote in message 20060308213029.GA9188@kitenet.net">news:20060308213029.GA9188@kitenet.net...
Academic Free License 2.1 has been discussed here before and is
IIRC non-free, how about version 1.1? License follows:

[Snip]
Grant of License. Licensor hereby grants to any person obtaining a copy of the
Original Work ("You") a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
non-sublicenseable license (1) to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, perform,

I'm not sure but "non-sublicenseable license" may be a problem.

distribute and/or sell copies of the Original Work and derivative works
thereof, and (2) under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work and derivative works thereof, subject
to the following conditions.

[Snip]

THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF
THIS LICENSE. NO LICENSE TO ORIGINAL WORK IS GRANTED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER
THIS DISCLAIMER.

Those last two lines are probably problematic.
Francesco Poli was concerned about these lines in afl2.1:

#What about jurisdictions where a disclaimer of warranty is not effective
#(or, at least, not thoroughly enforceable)?
#Does this make the license suddenly disappear in those jurisdictions?

[snip]
License to Source Code. The term "Source Code" means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation
describing how to access and modify the Original Work.

Francesco Poli was concered about this definition:
# This is problematic, IMHO: if I want to distribute "Source Code", have I
# to ship *every* single piece of available documentation that describes
# how to modify the Original Work? Even independently written
# documentation?
# Does this satisfy DFSG#9?

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 reasonably calculated to
permit inexpensive and convenient access by You for as long as Licensor
continues to distribute the Original Work, and by publishing the address of
that information repository in a notice immediately following the copyright
notice that applies to the Original Work.

To quote Andrew Suffield on the AFL 2.1:
# Clause restricting the licensor. That's *fucked up*. Goodness knows
# what that means.



Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate
automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You
by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI
Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims
that are essential to use that software.

That could well be non-free. Andrew Suffield had a problem with a somewhat similar clause in the AFL 2.1, but i'm unsure What that problem was, and whether or not this causes problems.





Reply to: