* Ciaran O'Riordan wrote, On 22/11/07 12:50: 
Sam Liddicott <sam@liddicott.com> writes:
  
The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
chain.
    

You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
argument against AGPL compatibility.

Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

Are you really against additional requirements
I don't mind that the GPL3 itself has additional requirements to the GPL2.

I understood (correctly I hope) that equivalent patent requirements of the apache license are part of the GPL3 license and so that licensors do not actively "add" the requirements of the apache license to the GPL3. Clause 9 of the apache license is not a restriction on use as such merely prevents liability from passing beyond the bounds of those who profit.

Supplementary terms a-f in section 7 of GPL3 do not trouble me; they are all fair terms, which given infinite foresight could have been coded explicitly in the GPL3, but lack of such foresight in different legal realms requires this flexibility; those terms do not materially change the restrictions of the GPL3 in my mind. Those terms help licensors to be able to *actually* get the benefits which the GPL should provide.

I'm against people being able to add additional requirements to the work already licensed by me, by converting from GPL3 to AGPL.

However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.

So I thank Ciaran (and also Simo's efforts) because I now realise that the AGPL / GPL3 compatability effort which I knew about has not somehow (behind my back) added an extra clause to the GPL3.

And so, my brief opposition to the GPL3 has been successfully quelled, I find nothing objectionable in it.

I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3 licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination.

I realise that Simo tried to point that out, but in my state of confusion did not understand.

So.... I am back to what I originally thought, the AGPL is a seperate license which applies the benefits of the AGPL license to GPL3 software when used with the said AGPL software. I have no problem with that.

So.. thanks - and sorry for causing so much noise.

Sam