* Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [20080720 19:42]: > Anders Karlsson wrote: >> And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or >> over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly >> permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination >> work. >> >> Am I understanding this right? > > This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly > states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero > GPL (AGPL) is a example of this. > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and to the organisation you represent. > "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have > permission to link or combine 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." So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL licensed in the combined works and derivatives? Thanks! /Anders -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
