On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote: > I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ? > > So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who > modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me > give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.
A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3. > And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various > others; as well as being AGPL friendly. > > If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to > propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly. > > Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to > part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full > linking. I think that provision means what you would like it to mean. But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses. I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point. > It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care > if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in > fact I'd like it. I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but clarification is indeed needed. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
