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

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

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:45:54 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:

> On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
> > Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
> > within "NOTICE" files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any*
> > descriptive text identified as an "Attribution Notice" (even when this
> > text includes something other than attribution notices!).
> > 
> > I think this is non-free, unless all descriptive texts identified as
> > "Attribution Notices" only contain attribution notices.
> The ftpmasters do not decide whether Debian will accept particular
> licenses; they decide whether Debian will accept particular software.
> One possible outcome for this part would be the ftpmasters deciding that
> AFL-3.0 software is only Free if it does not have any Attribution
> Notices that are not, in fact, attribution notices.

Yes, that's basically what I meant. Sorry for not being clear enough.
I think this clause is OK only for works where there are no descriptive
texts identified as "Attribution Notices", but containing parts which
are not attribution notices.

I hope it's clearer now.

Unfortunately, the other problematic clauses still hold...

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpdjHYpVCLNJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: