This website is an archive. It was used for drafting and public consultation on GPLv3 and version 3 of other GNU licenses which were published in 2007. For up to date information, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. For more information about this archive, see https://www.fsf.org/licensing/gplv3-archive

From GPLv3 Wiki

Revision as of 20:14, 1 January 2007 Beuc (Talk | contribs) GPLv3-compatible licenses ← Previous diff		Revision as of 14:55, 3 January 2007 ashawley (Talk | contribs) GFDL and CC-BY-SA - Simple GFDL may, but people should avoid CC licenses. Next diff →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Are there any plans to make the GFDL and CC-BY-SA compatible?--[[User:bjwebb|bjwebb]] 08:17, 30 December 2006 (EST)		Are there any plans to make the GFDL and CC-BY-SA compatible?--[[User:bjwebb|bjwebb]] 08:17, 30 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	That may be the purpose of the Simple GFDL initiative, but I'm not so sure compatibility will be attained. People still suggest that manuals for free software should be released under the GFDL and not one of the creative commons licenses. Creative commons licenses have the problem of not all being free and yet being similarly named. Even the GNU license list[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html] suggests using the free art license for other types of works instead of any creative commons license. --[[User:ashawley|ashawley]] 09:55, 3 January 2007 (EST)

---

Revision as of 14:55, 3 January 2007

GPLv3-compatible licenses

The following things should be clarified:

• Affero GPL 1.0 is not compatible with GPLv3-draft-2. In [1], RMS said: "The idea is to make GPL version three compatible with a modified version of the Affero licence. They will modify the Affero licence and thus cause all these things to be compatible."
• PHP license 3.01 requires, that derived works don't contain "PHP" in their name. This contradicts with the last paragraph of section 7.b of GPLv3-draft-2, and makes PHP license 3.01 incompatible with GPLv3-draft-2.
• GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. You can use GPLv2 code in GPLv3 work only if the work is dual-licensed "GPLv2 or any later version", or if you are the copyright holder of the work.

--Larhzu 07:15, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

If PHPL3 is not compatible then Apache 1.1 won't either, for the same reason. As for Apache 1.0, it has an advertising clause, so I think it never was compatible with any GPLv3 draft. Beuc 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)

GFDL and CC-BY-SA

Are there any plans to make the GFDL and CC-BY-SA compatible?--bjwebb 08:17, 30 December 2006 (EST)

That may be the purpose of the Simple GFDL initiative, but I'm not so sure compatibility will be attained. People still suggest that manuals for free software should be released under the GFDL and not one of the creative commons licenses. Creative commons licenses have the problem of not all being free and yet being similarly named. Even the GNU license list[2] suggests using the free art license for other types of works instead of any creative commons license. --ashawley 09:55, 3 January 2007 (EST)