* list@akfoerster.de wrote, On 22/11/07 17:27: 
Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:

  
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@fsfe.org> wrote:
    
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:
      
"Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let 
redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the 
software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3. 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware
        
This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
      

The AGPL compatibility is NOT an added restriction!  It was there right from its first 
official release (or earlier).
words... however it sounds plausable put like this:

The AGPL compatibility clause provides for adding an extra restriction.

By my reading, if the privileges of GPL/13 are invoked then the web-quine (weird word, that) applies to further distributions.

And, therefore GPL/13 itself requires that the possibility of "this restriction being added" be permitted and so this required permission also becomes an additional restriction (or obligation) that met be passed in order to distribute.

In any case it is additional to GPL2 which is the context against which many see it anyway.
Okay, you didn't know the exact wording of the final AGPLv3 then, but it is not that 
different from the former version of the Affero GPL, so you could have known what it is 
about
Maybe I could/should have.

I was looking forward AGPL support, I personally only realised this (possible) implication yesterday.

MJ may have other reasons. (I do butt in a lot, don't I?)

Simo has suggested in the "pleasant solution" thread that my fears are ungrounded, but we will see.

Sam