<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
MJ Ray wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47505b14.sAPfc38uxKlCP6h%2F%25mjr@phonecoop.coop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">simo <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simo.sorce@xsec.it"><simo.sorce@xsec.it></a> wrote: [...]
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think in some cases it can be very hard, but I guess it all boils down
to the authors defining what they consider being the boundaries.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That would create a lawyerbomb in itself, which isn't really good for
free software.
I think it isn't very clear what is a derived work of a GPLv3 source
code and what is combining a GPLv3 with a clean-room AGPLv3 source
that just happens to fit well with the GPLv3 one.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think (at the moment) that the combining is only an exception for the
purposes of running GPL3 code with AGPL. Any modifications to either
work fall under existing licenses. GPL3/13 as I presently understand
it adds a restriction of AGPL when conveyed with AGPL, but does not
affect the works own license.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:47505b14.sAPfc38uxKlCP6h%2F%25mjr@phonecoop.coop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I were an AGPL author I would think twice the way I link to GPLv3
stuff and err on the GPLv3 side for any glue code.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That wouldn't achieve the common AGPL author's desire of enforced
sharing over the network. (Nor will the AGPL, but they most people
seem to ignore that...)
Best wishes,
</pre>
</blockquote>
My current (enlightened?) reading is that GPl3 users who can get the
AGPL combined source can use derivations of the GPL work (which must be
GPL licensed) in their GPL work according to the GPL.<br>
<br>
So true non-linking/combining mix-derivations of AGPL and GPL3 works
will be very hard as the licenses are not actually compatible.<br>
<br>
Sam
</body>
</html>