* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:25:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
- Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
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 sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
- Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.
I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima, effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a grant of permission.
That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with other popular license.
My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3 software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with AGPL software.
No it adds requirements, no restrictions on what users can do, just requirements when they are done with it.
Let's use the right words please.
Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?
I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.
Would you say it added requirements then? (I guess you knew what I meant)
It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would try a similar but more restrictive clause;
And how this would be relevant?
Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.
I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of another license.
In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when combined remains under the GPLv3.
The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:
I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements on use of software governed by another license.
if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL software to provide a web service. I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.
If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3 software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.
Thanks what I meant.
Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting conditional distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be AGPL such a term, it restricts use regardless of distribution. Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?
Sam