<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* simo wrote, On 30/11/07 15:25:
<blockquote cite="mid:1196436346.16749.36.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:39 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* simo wrote, On 29/11/07 22:57:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's how I read the AGPL - except the GPL3/13 allows conversion of the
GPL3 work to AGPL in which case the modifications could be AGPL.
It seems to me that GPL3/13 that gives authority to do this, not AGP -
if the recipient chooses to act on that authority and do so.
However, a summary of points will be collated on Monday for a request
of official clarification as per Shane's suggestion.
I enjoyed the discussion, anyway... even though I got a little
overheated, so thanks all, for being so frank so that we could
understand each-others concerns and understandings.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I have exchanged a couple of emails with Richard Fontana of SFLC, one of
they key lawyers involved in helping FSF coming up with the GPLv3 during
the drafting process.
He told me his personal opinion, which is not necessarily what the FSF
thinks, is that my read of the clause is close to his reading.
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Thanks for following this up.
I hope then, that "combine" does not permit modification.
(Please don't think I am being pedantic here, I try to understand the
scope of rules by discovering their boundaries, and that is what I am
doing here, and I appreciate your indulgence and help.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes I think "combine" does not include modification, just those cases
where "linking" was not enough to include "potentially license
infringing" interactions beyond linking.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, if the modifier can't release an AGPL patch to the GPL3
portion they may choose to not release a patch, but to merely continue
to distribute the combined work as permitted by the AGPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, I think you can *not* release that patch under the AGPL. That patch
will always be GPLv3. When you let people download the source code it
will be on the GPLv3 work side and clearly GPLv3.
</pre>
</blockquote>
And if it is never released or distributed as a patch, but just a
combined modified AGPL work?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1196436346.16749.36.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It seems like the AGPL then would prohibit the separation of the
patch from the combined work (which may not be what the license
authors intended)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't think this is possible or make sense to me.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As you said, if the patch was AGPL it could not be distributed. <br>
If the patch is not distributed then there is just a modified AGPL work
and if the patch were extracted it would be derived from the combined
AGPL work and so AGPL licensed. And then, cannot be distributed as you
said, because it is also derived from a GPL3 work? Or can it?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1196436346.16749.36.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Do you think from what Richard says that the original GPL3 author can
extract this modification to the GPL3 portion as a GPL3 patch, (the
patch not being his work and only distributed as part of the AGPL
combination) and combine this patch with his own work and distribute
it according to the GPL3?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think, and Richard opinion seem to be the same, that you simply can't
release that patch "under the AGPL". All you do is release it under the
GPL together with the rest of the GPL work. Only if the application is a
combination of AGPL and GPL code, then you have to provide for download
also the GPL part. But the GPL stuff is *always* GPL, it is never AGPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sure, if the modifier releases a patch. What if they don't? Can the
original author as a recipient of the AGPL source diff one?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1196436346.16749.36.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">An example case: if a glue-class is written in php, subclassing a
class from the GPL3 module, but instantiated by the AGPL3 module (thus
also performing a link operation), and it be this subclass that has
some implementation that "ought" to be incorporated into the GPL3
module, will the GPL3 author, receiving the source by virtue of being
a "user" of the AGPL3 work, be able to combine parts of this subclass
into his own work, without receiving addition permissions fro the
subclass author?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think the "instantiation" is the linking/combination, but the class is
tied to the GPLv3 work. Therefore, my interpretation in this case, would
be that the class is GPLv3 bound. But this is all thin air, I think we
need to see a very specific case to determine that with some clue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I should have been more clear, but it's hard because the subclass (as
glue) could easily equally be part of either work. And what if the
subclass author says it is an AGPL subclass?<br>
Then precisely the GPL3 author cannot add this to the GPL3 work. So the
linking boundary can be used to derive<br>
<br>
(I have often subclassed web toolkits because it helps upgrades of the
toolkit to easily be applied as long as the API is stable.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1196436346.16749.36.camel@localhost.localdomain"
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.
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>
Yes... I'm worried about authors who want to promote the AGPL and so
are happy to break the GPL expectation of equal sharing.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>