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

simo simo.sorce at
Thu Nov 22 15:28:46 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:06 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home at> 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.

Well said.

> > 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.

People that claim having followed the GPLv3 drafting should remember
that such provision were initially going to be in GPLv3. They were
removed later because people thought it was too much to give out a broad
permission to add a web-quine requirement and instead mentioning
explicitly one blessed license to do that was preferred.


More information about the Discussion mailing list