I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
I’m glad that Brett wrote this tutorial. My typical answer when
someone asks me which license to chose is to
say: Use AGPLv3-or-later
unless you can think of a good reason not to. That’s a glib answer
that is rarely helpful to questioner. Brett’s article is much better
and more useful.
An important component of GPLv3
drafting was to reach out and mend relationships with other useful
software freedom licenses that had been drafted in the time since GPLv2
was released. Brett’s article published yesterday shows the culmination
of that fence-mending: Apache-2.0 is now not only compatible with the
GPLv3 and AGPLv3, but also the FSF’s recommended permissive license!
The collective thoughts of the interwebz
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
