Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Sam Liddicott]

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>   
>> Sam Liddicott <sam at liddicott.com> writes:
>>     
>>> The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
>>> understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
>>> chain.
>>>       
>> You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
>> argument against AGPL compatibility.
>>
>> Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
>> requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
>>     
>
> Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I
> can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
> + Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.
>
> I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of
> restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you
> couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima,
> effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a
> grant of permission.
>
> That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with
> other popular license.
>   
My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3
software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with
AGPL software.

Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?

It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would
try a similar but more restrictive clause;

I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of another
license.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071122/1c220a4d/attachment.html>