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. I guess that's inevitable but I think it will not be as dangerous as permitting an AGPLv3 patch to a GPLv3 work. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
