GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Sam Liddicott]

* list at akfoerster.de wrote, On 22/11/07 17:27:
> Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:
>
>   
>> Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at fsfe.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> writes:
>>>       
>>>> "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let 
>>>> redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the 
>>>> software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3. 
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware
>>>>         
>>> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
>>>       
>
> The AGPL compatibility is NOT an added restriction!  It was there right from its first 
> official release (or earlier).
>   
words... however it sounds plausable put like this:

The AGPL compatibility clause provides for adding an extra restriction.

By my reading, if the privileges of GPL/13 are invoked then the
web-quine (weird word, that) applies to further distributions.

And, therefore GPL/13 itself requires that the possibility of "this
restriction being added" be permitted and so this required permission
also becomes an additional restriction (or obligation) that met be
passed in order to distribute.

In any case it is additional to GPL2 which is the context against which
many see it anyway.
> Okay, you didn't know the exact wording of the final AGPLv3 then, but it is not that 
> different from the former version of the Affero GPL, so you could have known what it is 
> about
Maybe I could/should have.

I was looking forward AGPL support, I personally only realised this
(possible) implication yesterday.

MJ may have other reasons. (I do butt in a lot, don't I?)

Simo has suggested in the "pleasant solution" thread that my fears are
ungrounded, but we will see.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071122/f8231a49/attachment.html>