AGPLv3 and GPLv2

[Mike McGrath]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> 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.
>

That's my concern too, I just want to know what we can / can't do.

	-Mike