simo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3, > > so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out? Oops? > > I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x > before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added > requirement. [...]
Unless the added requirement is shown to be fluffed. Needing a new GPL to fix a problem in AGPL's AGPL-specific parts seems like a bug. > That's why the FSF promotes the "or later" > clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later, > without the need to re-license. Yes, that one thing that makes it so surprising that FSF didn't use an "or later" clause in the licence! So if a .1 of either licence appears, GPL/AGPL-mixes have to wait until all constituent projects have bumped to .1 - like the current GPL/LGPL 2/3 messes, but possibly worse. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
