GPL License with clause for Web use?

Bernhard R. Link brl at
Wed Nov 21 16:41:23 UTC 2007

* simo <simo.sorce at> [071121 16:05]:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sam Liddicott <sam at> wrote:
> > > In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
> > > their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
> > > in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
> > 
> > Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> > well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> > bytes and developer-time on the licences.
> Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
> Why bothering about copyleft at all?

I can't speak for others, but I personaly want copyleft in the sense
that I want a license that gives users the freedom to use (including
modification/copying/distribution/other stuff copyright law has decided
are not worthy freedoms to protect) my software and avoid other people
abusing it in a way not giving this freedoms.
In my eyes AGPL does not grant the freedoms sufficently, thus I consider
using my code to force people under that license something I do not
want. In this regard GPLv3 is anti-copyleft in my eyes, because while it
still makes the software free, it does not even garantee its freedom,
but even makes it impossible for people to put it under any copyleft.
Because you cannot combine it with code that disallows making the
software non-free, because you are forced to allow use-restrictions.

This is my personal opinion. You might not share it. But if you do no
like it, please try to argue against the content,
	Bernhard R. Link

More information about the Discussion mailing list