On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote: [...]
True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? You can't "relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. [...]
Erm, you can take an existing work under the GPLv3 and combine it with a new one under the AGPLv3, can't you?
/me checks http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Yep, nothing seems to limit clause 13 to an *existing* work. Did I miss something?
By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3, so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out? Oops?
I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added requirement. If you use GPLv3 only, then ooops, you are in the same troubles GPLv2 only people are now wrt GPLv3, nothing can be done about that, license compatibility between strong copylef licenses can be achieved only by explicit permission and that has to be put into the new *and* the old license. That's why the FSF promotes the "or later" clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later, without the need to re-license. If you keep strict ownership of the work you don;t have this problem of course. Others will as they will have to beg you to make your stuff compatible with the new version, but this is the nature of copyright, nothing that can be solve in a license (except by dropping copyleft and being just liberal).
Simo.