<!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">
* simo wrote, On 30/11/07 13:42:
<blockquote cite="mid:1196430128.16749.19.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* simo <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simo.sorce@xsec.it"><simo.sorce@xsec.it></a> [071129 23:52]:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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="">But even if this holds, someone could still patch the GPLv3 work to a
state where it no longer works alone, and then linking it with a AGPLv3
code having the missing pieces for it to work, couldn't they?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I too think there are probably some pathological cases where it will be
difficult to understand the boundaries, or where a patch to the GPLv3
side even if GPLv3ed will not really be much of use without the AGPLv3
part. </pre>
</blockquote>
or even if it will, or part of it will be some use.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1196430128.16749.19.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I guess that's inevitable but I think it will not be as dangerous
as permitting an AGPLv3 patch to a GPLv3 work.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Perhaps, but it thus seems conclusive that the expectation of equality
can be broken after all: - AGPL fans can combine with GPL3 works,
enhance the GPL3 work, not distribute a patch, comply with the license
and yet the GPL3 author may not take these enhancements to their own
work unless they re-license as AGPL.<br>
<br>
I think I have a good understanding of the possibilities and
likelihoods.<br>
<br>
Thanks to all for helping explore this.<br>
<br>
I predict that Samba4 integration with groupware will be the first such
victim (if any), possibly resulting in a fork.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>