On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:03 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > 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. >
This is one reason why AGPL will not be too much widespread, luckily. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
