* simo wrote, On 30/11/07 13:42:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
- simo simo.sorce@xsec.it [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.
or even if it will, or part of it will be some use.
I guess that's inevitable but I think it will not be as dangerous as permitting an AGPLv3 patch to a GPLv3 work.
Perhaps, but it thus seems conclusive that the expectation of equality can be broken after all: - AGPL fans can combine with GPL3 works, enhance the GPL3 work, not distribute a patch, comply with the license and yet the GPL3 author may not take these enhancements to their own work unless they re-license as AGPL.
I think I have a good understanding of the possibilities and likelihoods.
Thanks to all for helping explore this.
I predict that Samba4 integration with groupware will be the first such victim (if any), possibly resulting in a fork.
Sam