<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* Shane Martin Coughlan wrote, On 21/11/07 20:14:
<blockquote cite="mid:474491AF.1050502@fsfeurope.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Suggestion:
How about we make a list of concerns that people have and I email Brett
Smith with them? That way we consolidate the concerns into one
submission and potentially speed up the process of obtaining answers.
MJ, Sam, perhaps you could coordinate the list of questions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thanks for this good suggestion.<br>
<br>
I volunteer to coordinate a list of questions or points that ought to
be expressed on a GPL FAQ or informational page.<br>
<br>
Submitters may add comments on:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a><br>
<br>
or may email me directly or reply to this thread with the subject line
beginning: Questions / Concepts GPL<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:sam@liddicott.com?subject=Questions%20/%20Concepts%20GPL">mailto:sam@liddicott.com?subject=Questions%20/%20Concepts%20GPL</a><br>
<br>
In coordinating such comments I may add links to them to the page at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a><br>
<p>My personal proposal is the creation of a
list of implications of choosing a specific license to help prospective
licensors choose (or avoid) a license according to their requirements.</p>
<p>My proposed implication is:</p>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">The GPL is widely considered a <span
style="font-style: italic;">share-alike</span> license where licensors
have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the
distribution chain.
<p>With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution
chain, derived works may have certain additional restrictions added,
thus licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an
original contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his
own work, he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of
those enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions
of the AGPL. </p>
<p>If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may
prefer to use the GPL2.</p>
</div>
<p>I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because
ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of
extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.</p>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>