GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo simo.sorce at
Wed Nov 21 18:30:34 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:03 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
> > > so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?
> >
> > I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x
> > before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added
> > requirement. [...]
> Unless the added requirement is shown to be fluffed.  Needing a new
> GPL to fix a problem in AGPL's AGPL-specific parts seems like a bug.
> > That's why the FSF promotes the "or later"
> > clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later,
> > without the need to re-license.
> Yes, that one thing that makes it so surprising that FSF didn't use an
> "or later" clause in the licence!
> So if a .1 of either licence appears, GPL/AGPL-mixes have to wait
> until all constituent projects have bumped to .1 - like the current
> GPL/LGPL 2/3 messes, but possibly worse.

This is one reason why AGPL will not be too much widespread, luckily.


More information about the Discussion mailing list