<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Butch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@pennmanor.net" target="_blank">matt@pennmanor.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br>
On May 9, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Christopher Nighswonger wrote:<br>
<br>
> As I see it, the advantage and rational for moving to GPLv3 are<br>
> primarily that GPLv3 is compatible with AGPLv3. This allows us to<br>
> accept work licensed under either of these two licenses.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't know if that is true. From what I understand you can't mix GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code. You can link to libraries that are compiled with GPLv3 in AGPLv3 (or vice versa), but the code can't be mixed in the same code base. And AGPLv3 does not allow linked of GPLv2 libraries.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Combining is specifically permitted. Paragraph 13 of AGPLv3 clearly states (emphasis mine):<br><br>"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission
to link *<b>or combine</b>* any covered work with a work licensed under version 3
of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to
convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to
apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it
is
combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public
License."<br><br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html</a><br><br>Kind Regards,<br>Chris<br>