On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:20 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote: > * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:12: > > 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. > > > > GPL3/13 and AGPL suggest otherwise to my reading. > The GPL3 work could become an AGPL work and any changes thus also > AGPL, refusing their entry back into the GPL3 work > > I wish I were wrong.
I hope you are :-) > > > 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. > > > > thank-you. > Are you a drafter? I have been in one of the committees, but I didn't consider much this provision, unfortunately. > > > 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. > > > thankyou. > > I agree it is rare, but if it is to be adopted it must be understood > and trusted. Sure. > Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after > they have licensed their software. Unfortunately you can never be 100% sure, but intent matters too sometimes, so clarification for the FSF would be good. > It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if > the license was not understood. Law admits no ignorance they say, but this is not true in all legal system I understand. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
