<!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">
* MJ Ray wrote, On 22/11/07 13:42:
<blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@phonecoop.coop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@liddicott.com"><sam@liddicott.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused
yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL
was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought
the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you are referring to the quotation by Ciaran O'Riordan in
Message-Id: <9labp793zq.fsf%40vorcha.compsoc.com>
then that is indeed from the GPL, not the AGPL. (It was headed "Use
with the GNU Affero General Public License" while the AGPL section 13
is titled "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public
License.") => GPL3 itself seems to permit upgrading to the AGPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
er yess. darn it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@phonecoop.coop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3
licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for
the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination. [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, enhancements to your GPL3 work may be licensed under the GPL3 or
the AGPL3, depending on various things.
Is this why the question-gathering page previously linked as
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a>
seems to have vanished?
</pre>
</blockquote>
it is still there, I hope, I have not vanished it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@phonecoop.coop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Puzzled,
</pre>
</blockquote>
darn, not more than I am! I feel a fool as well as look like one.
Agagghahgh.<br>
<br>
So... whether or not I like the GPL3 right-now-at-this-instant :-)
really depends on the meaning of "combination".<br>
<br>
If I take the meaning which I think Simo referred to yesterday, it
means separate but linked interacting modules; i.e. not a patch to my
work.<br>
e.g. a CMS that uses my template system distributed in one package, in
which any patches to the template system MUST be licensed GPL3.<br>
<br>
However reading again section 13 from:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html</a><br>
<br>
it seems like even that may not be the case.<br>
<br>
So.... I don't apologize for apologizing, but I thank MJ for putting me
right again. <br>
<br>
(shakes head at reflection sadly)<br>
<br>
Sam
</body>
</html>