On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Sam Liddicott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
