Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.

simo simo.sorce at
Thu Nov 22 17:12:39 UTC 2007

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.

> 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.

> 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.


More information about the Discussion mailing list