Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

From: Isaac David <isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info>
To: Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net>
Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:07:05 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1504062425.1444.0@plebeian.isacdaavid.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8d17fae2-280b-9480-6673-99479caf3340@riseup.net>

Aaron Wolf wrote :
> All I need to say in a license is something like: "This software under
> Mynewlicense may be sublicensed specifically under the GNU AGPLv3, in
> which case, none of the other terms of Mynewlicense shall apply."

and Mynewlicense yields. this is exactly what i said. Mynewlicense is
in effect a disjunction of various licenses: either Mynewlicense or
AGPLv3. at no point does it apply in parallel to the AGPLv3.

> the AGPL having all the "exactly the same terms" clause is
> COMPLETELY irrelevant.

that clause is the whole reason the terms of Mynewlicense aren't
passed down the line to derivative works, but the AGPL terms are. it's
also the whole reason why _both_ GPL and AGPL need section 13. how is
that irrelevant?

i should have been more explicit when i said that both AGPL and GPL
needed to work together for compatibility to work. i was only
referring to *their* compatibility as it exists.

> The MIT/Expat license or BSD-3 can be used in an AGPLv3 project.
> There's no need for the AGPL wording to say so.

this is a good argument against the part where I went full literalist
interpreting the copyleft clause. those licenses don't need extra
permission because they've been traditionally understood as subsets of
what the GPL already demands. this is what the Software Freedom Law
Center has to say on the matter:

> A condition in a non-GPL license covering some incorporated code,
> however liberal or simple such a license is, is certain to be
> different from the terms of the GPL in at least a literal
> sense. However, the meaning of “further restrictions” under GPL
> version 2 (GPLv2) has not been read in a literalist fashion, but
> rather has been elaborated over time by the communities[...]
> The kinds of notice preservation requirements commonly found in
> permissive licenses are different from counterpart requirements in
> the GPL, but they are, as a rule, similar in nature and purpose
> and no more burdensome than the GPL requirements.

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss