AGPLv3 and GPLv2

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Mike McGrath<mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> So without knowing it we started using AGPLv3 code in our environment
> recently for fedora community and moksha.  In the past I think all of our
> stuff has been GPL(ish) mostly GPLv2 (toshio correct me if I'm wrong
> there)
>
> I want to make sure we're all aware of what we can and can'd do as far as
> mixing the code between the two as this could be very unfortunate.
>
> Luke, you described the AGPLv3 as "crucial".  Can you let the rest of us
> know why the GPLv2 wouldn't work?
>
> Toshio, also would you mind doing some grunt work and see what we've
> comitted to with mixing code?
>

Ugh. I would assume Tom will be the best person to answer questions on
mixing, but GPLv2 only and GPLv3 and AGPLv3 probably cannot mix. The
old GPLv2 and above and GPLv3 should be OK, but I am not sure about
that and AGPLv3. The AGPLv3 should mix with GPLv3 but I was frankly
confused when I looked at it and me making assumptions would be worse
than normal arm-chair lawyering :).

My confusion is the following:

Does anything AGPL need to have its code available for download as its
patched and running? If thats the case we would want to make sure that
it doesn't get mixed up with anything that contains passwords and such
:).

What kind of segregation would we need to do with patches? We probably
will not be able to take working code from say GPLv2 code and put it
in AGPLv3 code. [Actually what code could we do that with ? BSD?
Apache? Smoogen Proprietary License v1 ?]

None of the above is 'nightmare' stuff.. just more of making sure we
don't screw someone down the road with mixed licenses and metaphors.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"