Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.

simo simo.sorce at xsec.it
Thu Nov 22 18:17:54 UTC 2007


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:20 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * 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.

I hope you are :-)

> > > 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?

I have been in one of the committees, but I didn't consider much this
provision, unfortunately.

> > > 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.

Sure.

> Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after
> they have licensed their software.

Unfortunately you can never be 100% sure, but intent matters too
sometimes, so clarification for the FSF would be good. 

> It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if
> the license was not understood.

Law admits no ignorance they say, but this is not true in all legal
system I understand.

Simo.




More information about the Discussion mailing list