The Academic Free License 3.0 explicitly allows distributing copies of the work "under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor's reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free License" (emphasis mine).

Out of the many common licenses around, which of them fulfil this criterion? In an interview, Lawrence Rosen (the author of the AFL) replies to this question: "Apache License, GPL licenses, MPL, EPL, etc., etc. The AFL license is very permissive." However, the FSF classifies AFL as GPL-Incompatible. (This document says it is GPL-compatible, but it's dated 2002 and AFL-3.0 is 2005, so it probably refers to AFL-2.0 or earlier.)

If I am to believe both Mr. Rosen and the FSF, I could say that AFL and GPL are incompatible (I cannot distribute a program combining code under both licenses), but I can "change" the license of the AFL code to GPL and then distribute everything under GPL. Is that so? If not, I repeat the first question: what are other licenses that do not contradict AFL-3.0?

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.