gpl

Switching from GPLv2 or later to AGPL is perfectly legal. But if it is not your own project, it is often considered rude.

This does not relicense the original code, it just sets the license of new code and of the project as a whole.

This is the biggest news item for free culture and free software in the past 5 years: The creativecommons attribution sharealike license is now one-way compatible to the GPL — see the message from creativecommons and from the Free Software Foundation.

• Blender rigs under cc by-sa which use libraries under GPL are safe against suing, even if a Blender code contributor goes crazy,
• 3D models like the self replicating 3D printer RepRap and libre hardware designs under cc by-sa and GPL can be combined,
• GPL-compatible Free Software can utilize all content from the Wikipedia and
• On the personal side: we can merge art from Ryzom and Battle for Wesnoth and use both in the Pirate Party RPG.

Some license compatibility legalese might sound small, but the impact of this is hard to overestimate.

AGPL is a hack on copyright, so it has to use copyright, else it would not compile/run.

All the GPL licenses are a hack on copyright. They insert a piece of legal code into copyright law to force it to turn around on itself.

You run that on the copyright system, and it gives you code which can’t be made unfree.

To be able to do that, it has to be written in copyright language (else it could not be interpreted).

my_code = "<your code>"

def AGPL ( code ): 
    """
    >>> is_free ( AGPL ( code ) )
    True
    """
    return eval (
        transform_to_free ( code ) )

copyright ( AGPL ( my_code ) )

You pass “AGPL ( code )” to the copyright system, and it ensures the freedom of the code.

→ zu Depublizieren aus dem Tagesschau Blog. Sollte der Beitrag nicht mehr existieren, dann wurde er bereits depubliziert.

Ich möchte mich der Anfrage anschließen, alle Inhalte, für die Sie ausreichend Rechte haben, unter freie Lizenzen zu stellen.

Lizenzen, die sich eignen:

• GPLv3: Jeder kann es nutzen und muss seine Änderungen wieder freigeben. Die verbreitetste Lizenz von Freier Software → http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

I just thought a bit about the restrictions the GPLv3 allows, and I think I just understood their purpose and effect for the first time (correct me, if I'm wrong :) ).

What are the restrictions?

The GPLv3 allows developers (=copyright holders) to add selected restrictions, like forbidding the use of a certain brand name or similar.

The catch with them is, that any subsequent developer who adds anything is free to simply strip off the restrictions.

What is their effect?

Update (2015-10-08): Mit der Kompatibilität von BY-SA in Richtung GPLv3 ändert sich die Grundlage. CC BY-SA ist damit sinnvoller für freie Werke als die GFDL: Sie bietet niedrigere Hürden für Werke, die ihre eigener Quellcode sind (z.B. die meisten Bilder) und Werke, die für echtes Sharealike den Quellcode brauchen können unter GPL gestellt und trotzdem mit BY-SA Werken kombiniert werden.

→ Geschrieben auf heise.de.

GPL: Freie Werke von Beitragenden auf Augenhöhe.
BSD: Vogelfreie Werke von Schenkenden.

Sowohl in BSD-Lizenzen als auch in der GPL steht „die Lizenz dieses Teils muss erhalten bleiben“.

Here's the simple steps to attach a GPL license to your source files (written after requests by DiggClone and Bandnet):

For your own project, just add the following text-notice to the header/first section of each of your source-files, commented out in whatever way your language uses:

----------------following is the notice-----------------
/*
* Your Project Name - -you slogan-
* Copyright (C) 2007 - 2007 Your Name
*