Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo simo.sorce at
Fri Nov 30 13:42:08 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * simo <simo.sorce at> [071129 23:52]:
> > 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.
> 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?

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. I guess that's inevitable but I think it will not be as dangerous
as permitting an AGPLv3 patch to a GPLv3 work.


More information about the Discussion mailing list