1. Grant of Copyright License

OSL	AFL
Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free , nonexclusive, perpetual , sublicensable license to do the following:	Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, sublicensable license to do the following:
a) to reproduce the Original Work in copies;	a) to reproduce the Original Work in copies;
b) to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work;	b) to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work;
c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License ;	c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public;
d) to perform the Original Work publicly ; and	d) to perform the Original Work publicly; and
e) to display the Original Work publicly.	e) to display the Original Work publicly.

This first section of the OSL/AFL is the all-important open source license grant under copyright law. The license satisfies Open Source Principles # 2 and 3.

The underlined words in section 1(c) are in the OSL but not the AFL. This is the reciprocity provision that distinguishes academic and reciprocal open source licenses.

This section identifies the licensee as You . See OSL/AFL section 14 for the definition of that word.

The OSL/AFL grant to You a license for all five of the exclusive rights in copyrighted works from U.S. copyright law ”copy, create derivative works, distribute, perform, and display. (17 U.S.C. § 106.) There are no exclusive rights under the copyright law withheld by the Licensor.

In case there might be any doubt, the term Derivative Works is defined to be derivative works . This obviously doesn't answer the question, "What is a derivative work of software?" (I'll discuss that problem further in Chapter 12.) But what it does accomplish is to bring into the OSL/AFL licenses the term of art, derivative work , as that term is defined in copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 101).

The underlined proviso in section 1(c) of the OSL, absent from the AFL, is a clear statement of reciprocity that applies broadly to "copies of Original Work or Derivative Works." Such works may be distributed, but only under the same OSL license. You can sublicense your rights under the copyright owner's license to others, but only under the same license as you received the work.

Because it has no reciprocity provision, the AFL allows You to sublicense your rights under any license you please .

The OSL/AFL copyright license is:

• World-wide ” No territory is excluded. Of course, there is no such thing as a common law of copyright or contract that applies world-wide, and all nations have the authority to make their own laws to govern intellectual property licenses undertaken within their jurisdiction. For example, export control laws prevent some software from being exported to certain other countries regardless of the license. Also, at least in theory, a country somewhere could forbid this license entirely. The relationship between local laws and the law of the contract is addressed further by section 11 of the OSL/AFL.

• Royalty-free ” The license is at zero price . This does not restrict any licensee from setting his or her own prices for copies and derivative works. Any such restrictions on licensees setting their own prices would be an unfair business practice in many countries.

• Non-exclusive ” There may be other licensees besides You .

• Perpetual ” As far as we know, nothing in the universe really is forever. These licenses are perpetual only in the sense that the Licensor promises not to terminate them ”except perhaps under the termination provisions in sections 9 and 10. Note also that, in the United States and other countries, a license to an Original Work (other than a work for hire) is terminable under certain circumstances regardless of what the license says. (17 U.S.C. § 203.)

• Sublicensable ” The term sublicensable means that You can pass these rights on to anyone else you want. This simplifies the process by which open source software containing many contributions can be distributed without requiring each downstream licensee to go back to the original authors of contributions for licenses.

Comparison to Other Licenses

The BSD and Apache licenses permit "redistribution and use." (BSD license first paragraph; Apache license first paragraph.) Everyone assumes this means all the exclusive rights under copyright law, but those licenses aren't explicit. The BSD and Apache licenses are not sublicensable.

The MIT license permits everyone to "deal in the Software without restriction," including "without limitation" many of the same rights as listed in the OSL/AFL. (MIT license first paragraph.) Everyone assumes this means all the exclusive rights under copyright law. The MIT license is sublicensable.

The Artistic License grants permission to "make and give away verbatim copies; apply bug fixes...; modify your copy ... in any way...;" and "distribute...." (Artistic License sections 1 through 4.) Everyone assumes this means all the exclusive rights under copyright law. The Artistic License is not sublicensable.

The GPL ignores all activities other than "copying, distribution and modification," and then grants a license to "copy and distribute" and "modify ... and distribute." (GPL sections 0, 1, and 2.) The only reference to sublicensing rights in the GPL is ambiguous. (GPL section 4.) In practice the GPL is worldwide, royalty-free and nonexclusive. The GPL's "at no charge" requirement for derivative works (GPL section 2[b]) is not found in the OSL/AFL; indeed, the GPL's "at no charge" provision may be an illegal restraint of trade in certain countries.

The MPL copyright grant is explicitly "world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive" and "sublicensable." It includes all the exclusive rights under copyright law. (MPL sections 2.1 and 2.2.)

The CPL copyright grant is explicitly "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive" and "sublicensable." It includes all the exclusive rights under copyright law. (CPL section 2.)

The OSL/AFL reciprocity provision applies to "derivative works." By comparison, the MPL applies only to modified "files," and the CPL applies only to "additions to the Program which ... are separate modules of software." The GPL's reciprocity provision is ambiguous and the LGPL confuses it even further with its references to "linking," as I described at length in Chapter 6. These subtle but important differences can have significant effects on the licensing requirements for derivative works. Be sure to consult an attorney if you are at all uncertain about the import of open source license reciprocity obligations.