2 ms·
In general, it cannot, because the choice of license rests with the owner of the copyright. You may be mixing up the fact that the GPLv3 has an explicit clause
by jcranmer 4y ago
In general, it cannot, because the choice of license rests with the owner of the copyright.
You may be mixing up the fact that the GPLv3 has an explicit clause saying this:
> 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.
But that doesn't give the right for a non-owner to relicense the code.
- adastra22 4y agoIn general it can. The GPL allows relicensing so long as the new license doesn’t contradict the terms of the GPL. The AGPL is compatible in this way.
- PeterisP 4y agoBut it does explicitly allow a part-owner to relicense their code to AGPL, and bundle it with all the other authors' GPL code without asking them for permission since that explicit clause already grants that permission. And from a practical standpoint the new combined thing (where part of the code is AGPL and part is GPL) has to be treated as AGPL, because if you don't follow the AGPL restrictions, then you're breaching copyright of that part-owner who did distribute "their part" only under AGPL; the GPL clause 13 allowing the combination is explicit about that "[...] the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such."