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

[Sam Liddicott]

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:25:
> 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.
>
>   
Would you say it added requirements then? (I guess you knew what I meant)
>> 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?
>
>   
Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.
>> 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.
>   
The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal
concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:

I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements
on use of software governed by another license.

if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not
distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL
software to provide a web service.
I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.

If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3
software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.

Thanks what I meant.

Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting conditional
distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be AGPL such a
term, it restricts use regardless of distribution. Is this based on
copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13
affect non-distributing service providers?

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071122/432e1c80/attachment.html>