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?

  • I can suggest a process you can go through to arrive at the answer, but not a definitive answer. There are too many "other licenses" (last sentence). I wouldn't want to be penalised for it. – lellis Jan 24 at 6:25

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.