1

AFL license states that "Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. [...] As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c)."

  • Does this mean that source code of derivative work shall be made available even?
  • Does this remain valid whatever license we choose to use?
2

The FSF characterise the AFL as a free, non-copyleft licence. You are right that AFL3 s3 obliges that a copy of the original source be provided also, when the original work is distributed in any other form. But to consider your specific questions, I note that AFL3 s1b grants the right

to translate, adapt, alter, transform, modify, or arrange the Original Work, thereby creating derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work

Making it clear to me that the term "Original Work" doesn't include "Derivative Works" (as one would, in fairness, expect it not to). Section 1c goes on to grant the right

to distribute or communicate copies of the [...] Derivative Works to the public, under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms and conditions

Therefore I see no obligation to provide the source of derivative works, and if you do, I don't see any obligation for you to apply the AFL to them also. However, as ever, IANAL/IANYL.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.