* simo wrote, On 30/11/07 13:42: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > >> * simo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071129 23:52]: >> >>> Basically, Richard thinks that the "linked or combined" language does >>> not imply modification. IE, releasing a patch against the GPLv3 part of >>> the work under AGPLv3 would even be a copyright violation. The patch >>> needs to be GPLv3. Only the combination of the works obeys to AGPLv3's >>> additional requirements. But each piece retains completely its license. >>> >>> Therefore there is no risk that a GPLv3 work can be effectively turned >>> into an AGPLv3 work by means of patches. >>> >> But even if this holds, someone could still patch the GPLv3 work to a >> state where it no longer works alone, and then linking it with a AGPLv3 >> code having the missing pieces for it to work, couldn't they? >> > > I too think there are probably some pathological cases where it will be > difficult to understand the boundaries, or where a patch to the GPLv3 > side even if GPLv3ed will not really be much of use without the AGPLv3 > part. or even if it will, or part of it will be some use. > I guess that's inevitable but I think it will not be as dangerous > as permitting an AGPLv3 patch to a GPLv3 work. > Perhaps, but it thus seems conclusive that the expectation of equality can be broken after all: - AGPL fans can combine with GPL3 works, enhance the GPL3 work, not distribute a patch, comply with the license and yet the GPL3 author may not take these enhancements to their own work unless they re-license as AGPL.
I think I have a good understanding of the possibilities and likelihoods. Thanks to all for helping explore this. I predict that Samba4 integration with groupware will be the first such victim (if any), possibly resulting in a fork. Sam
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
