Aaron Wolf wrote :
I can write a new copyleft license today that is explicitly one-directionally compatible with the AGPLv3, and no change to AGPLv3 is needed for that to work.
the only scenarios i can conjure in which this would be possible are trivial ones: one where your copyleft license is unequivocally (for the courts) a one-to-one semantic copy of the AGPLv3, or what is more likely, one where it's in effect a dual license (mutually exclusive licenses, one of which is the AGPLv3). that's what CC-BY-SA-4.0 and copyleft-next do. this is because the AGPLv3, being a copyleft license itself, demands that derived works carry exactly the same terms. no more, no less: > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > [...] You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this > License [...] > [...] This License gives no permission to license the work in any > other way [...] there's no other way a licensee combining one work under your hypothetical copyleft license and another under the AGPLv3 can comply with the AGPLv3. it would mean subjecting the AGPLv3 part to your licence terms in addition to the AGPLv3. so until the second copyleft license corresponds you, it wouldn't matter if your license were explicitly accepting of it. that said, it would be great to add an open-ended permission to combine with future versions of the AGPL (or GPL), if you ever were to write a new copyleft license. that way the authors of the AGPL could decide whether to open the gates of compatibility, in which directions, under what conditions, etc; allowing the existing body of AGPLv3+ stuff to become retroactively compatible with all works under your license in a single move. -- Isaac David GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943 _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
