On Tue, 11 May 2010, Matthew Butch wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Christopher Nighswonger wrote:
As I see it, the advantage and rational for moving to GPLv3 are primarily that GPLv3 is compatible with AGPLv3. This allows us to accept work licensed under either of these two licenses.
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.
You are correct that you cannot mix GPLv2 only and AGPL or GPLv3 code. You can mix GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code, the result is AGPLv3 As noted in the license, this does not change the code in the original package, but if you make any changes and don't explicitly dual-license them then the resulting changes cannot be merged back into the GPLv3 codebase. David Lang