Changes between Version 31 and Version 32 of ApertureLicense

Timestamp:

10/12/05 16:35:56 (19 years ago)

Author:

anonymous

Comment:

--

ApertureLicense

@@ -43 +43 @@
 Feedback Aduna: the AFL is identical to the OSL except for the reciprocal demand. In my opinion this makes it clearer why we chose two different licenses to work in parallel: for some part you want the reciprocity, for others you do not. Furthermore, the AFL is in many other places compatible with the requirements outlined above, such as judicially soundness, jurisdiction, patent license and defense, etc., which are at best implicit in the BSD license.
 
-The main Sesame sponser, which also sponsors the FSF, would have the same doubts as listed [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html here on the fsf site].
+Some of the arguments against ASL are [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html listed on the FSF site].
 We would be one of the front runners, adopting these relatively new OSS licenses - OSL and AFL. maybe some people may find that discouraging. We don't need annoying "I am richard stallmann and am politically correct and won't use your bad code" discussions, It really can be frustrating. Using BSD would be ok for the core to avoid that - and when the AFL and OFL are common practice, we can re-lizence.
-If you have the copyright, you can always relicense your own files. if all copyright owners (i.e. DFKI and Aduna, for the time being) do that jointly, you basically have relicensed the entire problem.
+If you have the copyright, you can always relicense your own files. if all copyright owners (i.e. DFKI and Aduna, for the time being) do that jointly, you basically have relicensed the entire project.