GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Sam Liddicott]

* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:23:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:59 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>   
>>
>> Could you explain how I am trolling?
>>     
>
> I find it evident, the first thing I commented is false, the second too,
> as a license cannot oppose anything, a license is just a tool.
>   

it was a literary device, and somehow you knew what I meant.

>> I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3
>> opponent.
>>     
>
> I am glad you will stop using my software, maybe my bandwidth too ? :-)#
>   
no, why?
>> (And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I
>> did follow the process).
>>     
>
> Maybe because you should think and reason around the license and not
> jump on the first bump emotionally ?
>   
I think it's because I got lax through re-reading things that didn't
change much.
> True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? 
Thats the point. It's "so what to you" but not to me.
> You can't
> "relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an
> existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. In
> that case you can combine the 2 and the AGPL clause can kick in, big
> deal.
>
> What scares you so much about that?
>   
nothing
> That someone can take your work *under the GPLv3* and combine it with
> some AGPLv3 stuff and release a web app? Wow, and how is that going to
> make *your* life miserable, or that of the *users* of that service?
>   
it's not.
But it creates a disparity of commitment and expectation with ME.

If I did use GPL3, then I can't re-use the AGPL enhancements under the
same terms under I'm willing to let others use my work, simply because
I'm not willing to let others add the extra AGPL restriction. So GPL3 is
(by definition) the wrong license for me.
> You are assuming that:
> a) some of your work can be combined with a web app.
>   
Yes, I wrote a nice html object oriented templating system that compiles
html to a hierachy of subclassable php classes.
> b) someone is interested in using it
>   
yes, they keep downloading it
> c) someone is interested in pissing you off by using it and release your
> work combined with AGPLv3
>   
or they want to combine it with another work that is already AGPL
> d) someone is so bad that will not let you have anything useful back
> under the GPLv3 because they simply despise someone that allowed them to
> finish their work
>   
the extra enhancements are not all theirs
> e) anything that is useful for that web app is really something you want
> back.
>   
it will be too late then, won't it.
> Now you are giving this remote possibility so much importance that it
> makes you flip completely from "a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine
> GPL3 opponent".
>   
yes. To you it's remote because you don't know me and don't care.

To me it's real which is why it's worth talking about.

I talk about things because they matter to me. I don't censor my views
or concerns through an emulation of you.
> I am just glad I do not have to work with people like that, they may
> find they can't work with me because I decided to wear a differently
> colored shirt for a chance... no shades of gray in your world I guess...
>   
How many shades of grey do you have in your copyright law?



Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071121/3928372e/attachment.html>