<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 21/11/07 11:27:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195644470.3022.19.camel@laptop.alexhudson.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:14 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Huh? Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into
a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL? I doubt it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL
you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden
by the GPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Actually, no - the extra restrictions of the AGPL are allowed, because
GPLv3 gives the AGPL special treatment.
The combination of the two is effectively AGPL, but you can sever the
GPL pieces and drop the AGPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, I'm still not fully into GPL3 mode, I was thinking GPL 2.<br>
<br>
Anyway, AGPL is on my list of never to use licenses, which results (as
M J Ray says) in lots of re-invented wheels.<br>
<br>
In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from
benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).<br>
<br>
- thus it is prudent for me now to stick to GPL2 only.<br>
<br>
I hadn't realised that, so thanks to all for helping me realise this.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>