On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:08:45 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Do you mean "GNU GPL v2 or later" + "the prohibition to link/combine > > with GNU AfferoGPL v3"? > > > > That would not work as intended, I think. > > > > If I receive a work under that licensing scheme, I can choose between > > the following options: > > A) GPL v2 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" > > B) GPL v3 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" > > C) GPL vX + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" > > where X is greater than 3 > > Or, alternatively: > > A) GPL v2 + _permission_ to link/combine with (otherwise incompatible) GPL > v>2 code other than AGPL (any version) > B) GPL v3 + permission ... > C) GPL vX + permission ...
Well, if you mean this, then you're proposing to grant permission to link/combine with pretty anything (GNU AfferoGPL v3 included[1]), thus destroying one of the key features of the copyleft mechanism. If you're really suggesting this approach, you could well suggest releasing under the Expat/MIT license[2][3]: the result would not be so far away from what you propose... [1] you're probably excluding only AfferoGPL v1, but you are including licenses that are far worse than AfferoGPL v1... [2] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt [3] please note that I have nothing against the Expat license: I published several works under those terms (basically, whenever I don't feel a copyleft is appropriate or desirable) > > The set of allowed actions is strictly greater than if the license was GPL > v2 only. It is *much* greater than the set allowed by GPL v2 only! Depending on your opinion on copyleft, this could be seen as a flaw or as a merit... [...] > > On the other hand, the prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL > > v3 is a non-permissive additional term with respect to GPL v3. It is > > not listed in Section 7, subclauses (a) through (f); hence it is a > > "further restriction" from the GPL v3 point of view, and it may be > > removed as per Section 7. As a consequence, option B is equivalent to > > GPL v3. > > I would say that the interactions of sections 13 and 14 are pretty unclear. > I'm not sure whether it's a restriction or selective extra permission. At > least, section 13 ("you may upgrade to AGPLv3") would trump 14 ("you may > upgrade to later versions if permitted") if its initial words didn't state > "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License". As it is, it's > unclear. Are we permitted to cherry pick later license versions, or are > "=X" and ">=X" the only options? My understanding is that Section 13 is a permission that is granted whenever GPL v3 is included in the set of selectable licenses: "v1 or later", "v2 or later", "v3 or later", "v2 or v3", "v3 only", "v1 or v2 or v3" are all examples of GPL licensing schemes that grant permission to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3 licensed works. Hence, if you choose to license your work under the terms of the GNU GPL v3, you cannot avoid granting permission to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3 licensed works. This is one of the reasons why I say that the GNU GPL v3 implements a broken copyleft... > > > The compatibility with the GNU AfferoGPL v3 would *not* be avoided. > > Having a lot more knowledge than me, you're probably right I may well be wrong, I'm just explaining my understanding of the topic... And my usual disclaimers still apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > -- but merely > stating your (the copyright holder's) wishes is worthy enough, even if it > doesn't give a sure position in a court. This is generally true, but, in the present case, you're proposing to state the copyright holder's wishes in a self-contradictory way: on the one hand you grant permission to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3 licensed works (since you release a work under the terms of the GNU GPL v3, which includes a clause having this effect), on the other hand you express a somewhat confused exclusion of any AfferoGPL licensed work... This leaves the work in a rather unclear state: if Section 7 of GPL v3 didn't include the above outlined rule that "further restrictions" may be safely dropped, we could even end up with a non-valid license (at least for the option based on GPL v3)... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpwqnQPzFP14.pgp
Description: PGP signature
