Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > it looks like sections 4c and 4d of the AL have attribution requirements > > that aren't in GPLv3 and which make compatibility thus rely on the > > "additional requirements" provision of GPLv3's section 7b. No? > > I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D
Yes. GPLv3 allows additional requirements to be added. It does this in two ways: sections 7 and 13. If we all agree that Apache compatibility is good, then we can move past the argument that AGPL compatibility is bad simply because it involves additional requirements. > Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can > supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially: > there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a > web-quine. > > That's the difference. Not really. The mechanics of how additional requirements get added isn't important. The important thing is whether the allowed additional requirements are acceptable. If there were no "web-quine" licences that the GPLv3 drafters wanted GPLv3 to be compatible with, then it would have been a waste to put effort into genericising the wording that allows AGPL compatibility. Trying to genericise section 13 so that it could be in section 7 would also have needlessly delayed GPLv3 by up to five months. -- Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
