Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think requiring that some documentation is provided with the
source code, makes it unfree.
Charles Plessy<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor
However, it could be intended to mean anything from "Please don't strip
comments from the code" or "Keep the doc/ folder from the repository
when producing a src tarball" to "Include any documentation ever written
related to modifying the original work" (a patch howto, an emacs manual?).
If the licensor has a copy of Knuth's TAOCP (ie. it's "available
documentation"), and it describes something on-topic for modifying the
original work (eg. the work uses linked lists, described in Chapter 2)
then the Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of TAOCP. ∎