I'm referring to this, from the GNU.org license comments page: > It [the AGPL] is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take

I'm referring to this, from the GNU.org license comments page: > It [the AGPL] is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. In my mind, this is a pretty bad limitation. If I'm writing software for the free software community, it seems bad to me if someone working on a GPL project cannot take my code and use it as part of their project without the whole project then being under a mixed license. The terms of the AGPL would apply to a derived work even if all the other code was GPL. While it might sometimes be possible for someone to do everything they want that way, the added complexity means that using part of an AGPL project may be a non-starter even in those cases. The AGPL is also not compatible at all with GPL 2, which many projects are still using.