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

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

Alex Hudson <home at alexhudson.com> writes:
> > it looks like sections 4c and 4d of the AL have attribution requirements
> > that aren't in GPLv3 and which make compatibility thus rely on the
> > "additional requirements" provision of GPLv3's section 7b.  No?
>
> I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D

Yes.

GPLv3 allows additional requirements to be added.  It does this in two
ways: sections 7 and 13.

If we all agree that Apache compatibility is good, then we can move past the
argument that AGPL compatibility is bad simply because it involves
additional requirements.

> Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> web-quine.
>
> That's the difference.

Not really.  The mechanics of how additional requirements get added isn't
important.  The important thing is whether the allowed additional
requirements are acceptable.

If there were no "web-quine" licences that the GPLv3 drafters wanted GPLv3
to be compatible with, then it would have been a waste to put effort into
genericising the wording that allows AGPL compatibility.

Trying to genericise section 13 so that it could be in section 7 would also
have needlessly delayed GPLv3 by up to five months.

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org