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

Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0

On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.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
I don't think requiring that some documentation is provided with the source code, makes it unfree.

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. ∎

Reply to: