simo wrote: 
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 23:03 +0100, Carsten Agger wrote:
  
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sam Liddicott wrote:

    
Sorry for top quoting (darn pocket outlook, roll-on neo 1973)

Your scenario is nearly right.

What if the same person adds features to gcc   as well.

Are those features AGPL or GPL as gcc is gpl.
I want then to be gpl, I think they would be AGPl.
      
Well, since the features added would be part of the work for which the
GPLv3 "will continue to apply", they will be GPLv3.

Any changes which can be isolated to a part covered by the GPLv3 will be
GPLv3. Only such changes as apply to the parts covered by the AGPL or
the work as a whole (i.e., glue connecting the two parts) will be AGPL.

At least that's how I read it.
    

This is how I read it too so far.
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.

Sam