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

Contents 1 GPLv3-compatible licenses 2 GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3 Name incorrect 4 Lucent license

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 suggests using the free art license for other types of works instead of any creative commons license. --ashawley 09:55, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Name incorrect

Can you either please split this article (not good idea) or change the title? (better idea) Because this list does not contain only compatible licenses after all.. it should probably be called Software licenses. --qubodup 04:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Lucent license

Does anyone know what the problem with that license is? Is there some mailing list discussion about it, which google didn't find for me? --qubodup 04:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)