Academic Free License 2.1 ?

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 09:31:12 PST 2006


Markus Laire wrote:
> Hello,
> after reading the Academic Free License 2.1, which is used by BLFS,
> and also checking the debian-legal thread[1] about it,
> I don't quite understand why it's used in BLFS.
> 
> Two relevant quotes from a message[2] on debian-legal:
> 
>> > 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
>> > preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it
>> > and all available documentation describing how to modify the
>> > Original Work.
>>
>> 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?
> 
> That seems really strange.

Since I put the AFL in the book, this was my reasoning:  Someone
distributing the code does not have to *distribute* the documentation.
They have to *make it available*.  In my mind, a link to the BLFS book
is sufficient for that.

> IMHO the AFL clearly IS NOT a "very open license". If the intent is to
> leave the instructions unencumbered, some other license should be
> chosen instead of the AFL.

Perhaps not.  I'm open to changing the license.  Actually, my intent was
to protect the book, as in the CC License, but make the code available
without restriction, similar to the BSD License.  I don't recall right
now why I just didn't use the BSD License for the code.

  -- Bruce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list