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.
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?
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.
Simo.