On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:06 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > 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.
That doesn't really fit with how the GPLv3 was developed. The AGPL web-quine stuff *was* in section 7, it only got moved out in draft 3. So clearly the mechanics _are_ actually important :D Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
