3 ms·

No. They are just compatible, in that you can incorporate GPL code in AGPL project and vice versa, with both parts remaining under their respective license.

PeterisP 4y ago
There's really no vice versa - you can combine GPL code with AGPL code, but while both parts remain under their respective license, the resulting combination as a whole then has to follow the AGPL rules ("The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such."), so as soon as you incorporate even a tiny bit of AGPL code in your mostly-GPL project, users have to treat it as an AGPL project.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  > as soon as you incorporate even a tiny bit of AGPL code in your mostly-GPL project, users have to treat it as an AGPL project. … or else disentangle the parts, selecting only GPL parts. But yeah, if treating it as a project, AGPL covers it.
adastra22 4y ago
This is incorrect. The mixed projects would become AGPL.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  No, there is no such thing as software under a license "becoming" something else. When distributing the whole combined work e.g. a compiled file you have to follow the AGPL, naturally. The part under GPL/MIT/BSD is still there. If you were to extract only those source files and distributed them they would be still under GPL/MIT/BSD.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    From the GPLv3: > 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. > > 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 Affero 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 special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such. There is a similar clause in the AGPLv3 as well. The combined work must comply simultaneously with both GPLv3 and AGPLv3. Since AGPLv3 is a superset of restrictions, that means in all practical senses the combined work is AGPLv3.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Read my reply again. I very clearly spelled out: there is no such thing as software under a license "becoming" something else. When distributing the whole combined work e.g. a compiled file you have to follow the AGPL, naturally. > The combined work must comply simultaneously with both GPLv3 and AGPLv3 Correct. > Since AGPLv3 is a superset of restrictions, that means in all practical senses the combined work is AGPLv3. No. You just contradicted yourself. Yet again there is no such thing as "everything being AGPLv3".

PeterisP 4y ago

There's really no vice versa - you can combine GPL code with AGPL code, but while both parts remain under their respective license, the resulting combination as a whole then has to follow the AGPL rules ("The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such."), so as soon as you incorporate even a tiny bit of AGPL code in your mostly-GPL project, users have to treat it as an AGPL project.

chrismorgan 4y ago
> as soon as you incorporate even a tiny bit of AGPL code in your mostly-GPL project, users have to treat it as an AGPL project. … or else disentangle the parts, selecting only GPL parts. But yeah, if treating it as a project, AGPL covers it.

adastra22 4y ago

This is incorrect. The mixed projects would become AGPL.

goodpoint 4y ago
No, there is no such thing as software under a license "becoming" something else. When distributing the whole combined work e.g. a compiled file you have to follow the AGPL, naturally. The part under GPL/MIT/BSD is still there. If you were to extract only those source files and distributed them they would be still under GPL/MIT/BSD.
- adastra22 4y ago
  From the GPLv3: > 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. > > 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 Affero 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 special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such. There is a similar clause in the AGPLv3 as well. The combined work must comply simultaneously with both GPLv3 and AGPLv3. Since AGPLv3 is a superset of restrictions, that means in all practical senses the combined work is AGPLv3.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Read my reply again. I very clearly spelled out: there is no such thing as software under a license "becoming" something else. When distributing the whole combined work e.g. a compiled file you have to follow the AGPL, naturally. > The combined work must comply simultaneously with both GPLv3 and AGPLv3 Correct. > Since AGPLv3 is a superset of restrictions, that means in all practical senses the combined work is AGPLv3. No. You just contradicted yourself. Yet again there is no such thing as "everything being AGPLv3".