<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:25:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sam Liddicott <sam@liddicott.com> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
chain.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Would you say it added requirements then? (I guess you knew what I
meant)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would
try a similar but more restrictive clause;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
And how this would be relevant?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
another license.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal
concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:<br>
<br>
I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements
on use of software governed by another license.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks what I meant.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>