> Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use.
I think you're wrong.
> The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use.
The GPL, at least, puts restrictions on use: you can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) unless you distribute it in source form to the end users.
> The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software.
The AGPL does exactly the same thing as the GPL, just with a stronger distribution requirement: if you distribute access to end users, you must distribute it in source form to the end users.
The GPL was designed for the binary distribution age of software, the AGPL is the GPL for the SaaS distribution age. The GPL alone cannot satisfy Free Software goals in the new age.
> can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob)
Yes, you can. You can combine a GPLed program with whatever you want; you just can't redistribute the result if the combination runs afoul of the GPL.
redistribution is not use. Use is running the program, reading the program, trying changes and such.
You can combine GNU Bash with proprietary code and let users remotely log in to your box to try it.
> if you distribute access to end users
There is no such thing. Copyright law does not recognize "distributing access". The program is not being redistributed when it executes and exchanges messages with remote stations.
"Distributing access" also reminds me of the idea of someone hearing the sound of your coins jingling, or smelling your cooking: as in from the famous case of Ōoka_Tadasuke that circulates as a popular parable:
Honestly, I'm getting the impression you're too being too rigid with definitions: anchoring too strongly in the incidental specifics of GPL as being "free software" while ignoring its goals.
Nowhere does RMS say that, oh, if the user modified the program, it's okay to limit their freedom to run it in some ways, as long as it's via a license blessed by the GNU project and the FSF, the ultimate arbiters of what is free who can change their minds at any time.
However, in this article, RMS is cheerfully recommending Affero:
I think you're wrong.
> The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use.
The GPL, at least, puts restrictions on use: you can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) unless you distribute it in source form to the end users.
> The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software.
The AGPL does exactly the same thing as the GPL, just with a stronger distribution requirement: if you distribute access to end users, you must distribute it in source form to the end users.
The GPL was designed for the binary distribution age of software, the AGPL is the GPL for the SaaS distribution age. The GPL alone cannot satisfy Free Software goals in the new age.