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

[Aaron Wolf]

On 08/29/2017 05:51 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> Aaron Wolf wrote :
>> I can write a new copyleft license today that is explicitly
>> one-directionally compatible with the AGPLv3, and no change to AGPLv3
>> is needed for that to work.
> 
> the only scenarios i can conjure in which this would be possible are
> trivial ones: one where your copyleft license is unequivocally (for
> the courts) a one-to-one semantic copy of the AGPLv3, or what is more
> likely, one where it's in effect a dual license (mutually exclusive
> licenses, one of which is the AGPLv3). that's what CC-BY-SA-4.0 and
> copyleft-next do.
> 
> this is because the AGPLv3, being a copyleft license itself, demands
> that derived works carry exactly the same terms. no more, no less:
> 
>> 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
>> [...] You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
>> License [...]
>> [...] This License gives no permission to license the work in any
>> other way [...]
> 
> there's no other way a licensee combining one work under your
> hypothetical copyleft license and another under the AGPLv3 can comply
> with the AGPLv3. it would mean subjecting the AGPLv3 part to your
> licence terms in addition to the AGPLv3. so until the second copyleft
> license corresponds you, it wouldn't matter if your license were
> explicitly accepting of it.
> 
> that said, it would be great to add an open-ended permission to
> combine with future versions of the AGPL (or GPL), if you ever were to
> write a new copyleft license. that way the authors of the AGPL could
> decide whether to open the gates of compatibility, in which
> directions, under what conditions, etc; allowing the existing body of
> AGPLv3+ stuff to become retroactively compatible with all works under
> your license in a single move.

You seem to quite misunderstand the whole issue. There's NOTHING the
AGPL needs to say or even CAN say that blocks what I'm talking about.

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." or
something like that.

IANAL, but the AGPL having all the "exactly the same terms" clause is
COMPLETELY irrelevant.

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 the whole concept of unidirectional compatibility. An infinite
number of licenses could be written that all have any of a wide range of
terms, permissive or copyleft, and all they need to be AGPL (or just
GPL) compatible one-directionally is to say that *if* the code is used
in an AGPL project, then any AGPL-incompatible terms do not apply.

PROOFOFCONCEPT LICENSE:

This code can be used and modified in any way by anyone for any purpose.
However, this code may only be conveyed to others via a physical
printing of the code on paper placed inside a piñata along with a copy
of this license specifying that the code retains the terms of this
license with one exception: When combined with other code in a project
licensed under the GNU AGPLv3, any form of conveyance is allowed.