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

[simo]

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * 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.

No it adds requirements, no restrictions on what users can do, just
requirements when they are done with it.

Let's use the right words please.

> Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?

I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.

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

And how this would be relevant?

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

In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or
combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when
combined remains under the GPLv3.

Simo.