* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:12:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ?
So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.
A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3.
GPL3/13 and AGPL suggest otherwise to my reading. The GPL3 work could become an AGPL work and any changes thus also AGPL, refusing their entry back into the GPL3 work
I wish I were wrong.
And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various others; as well as being AGPL friendly.
If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly.
Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full linking.
I think that provision means what you would like it to mean. But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses. I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point.
thank-you. Are you a drafter?
It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in fact I'd like it.
I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but clarification is indeed needed.
thankyou.
I agree it is rare, but if it is to be adopted it must be understood and trusted.
Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after they have licensed their software.
It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if the license was not understood.
Sam