"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
> But the purpose of the AGPL has nothing to do with people using the software in ways that the license chooser doesn't like
Yes it is. If you wrote a network program, and you specifically don't like the idea that someone can modify it and then host that modified version for users without letting them have the source code, then the AGPL is a tool that nicely expresses your intent.
Licenses don't care about their intent. People analyze what they do and use them accordingly.
For instance, the GPL has turned out to very nicely suit corporate interests. The copyright holder of a GPLed software component has a competitive edge over the licensees. They have to abide by the license and release all their changes, which you can help yourself to; meanwhile, you can have a proprietary version in parallel.
> Straight from the gnu's mouth!
>
> "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
That gnu's mouth spoke 3 other clauses, and finished up with:
> A program is free software if it gives users adequately *all* of these freedoms. [emphasis mine]
>> But the purpose of the AGPL has nothing to do with people using the software in ways that the license chooser doesn't like
>
> Yes it is. If you wrote a network program, and you specifically don't like the idea that someone can modify it and then host that modified version for users without letting them have the source code, then the AGPL is a tool that nicely expresses your intent.
Ok, let's stick with "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". We're talking about running the software here, not modifying it or hosting it. You can run the program as you wish. For any purpose -- what purpose are you claiming is disallowed? "For the purpose of running it on my server without giving out my changes" is not about running it, that's about something incurred as a result of running it. Which is unfortunate, I agree; it would be nicer if all obligations were only incurred when distributing it. But that still doesn't restrict the running part.
But never mind, this is too much of a semantic argument at this point. I was trying to understand why the AGPL bothers you more than the GPL. I get the argument that it triggers a condition based on usage rather than distribution, but given that the condition does not restrict the usage, I'm not sure why you care. Is it a principle? I agree that it feels a little messy, but given my understanding of the core goal of copyleft licenses, it actually feels to me to be pretty close to a minimal encroachment beyond the GPL that still satisfies the original goal of the GPL for server-side software.
> For instance, the GPL has turned out to very nicely suit corporate interests. The copyright holder of a GPLed software component has a competitive edge over the licensees. They have to abide by the license and release all their changes, which you can help yourself to; meanwhile, you can have a proprietary version in parallel.
Yeah, and my previous message didn't adequately cover this part. AGPL+CLA has a purpose and expresses an intent beyond the intent behind GPL. I'm personally more concerned with the evolution of the software I and others release, even if I find this corporate usage of the AGPL somewhat fascinating. If I understand correctly, your philosophical objections to the AGPL aren't based on this corporate scenario either, though?
You care about restrictions on usage and want as few restrictions as possible, so a corporation building upon BSD code internally without releasing changes doesn't bother you. But AGPL does bother you, because that corporation (or any other user) would need to consider the requirements of running that code. Do I have that right? (Or strictly speaking, running and modifying the code, since there are no requirements placed upon just running it if you haven't changed anything.)
The main problem is the hypocrisy: the FSF promulgating a non-free license as a free license.
On their website, they have a list of nonfree licenses, for which they give reasons.
Several are identified as nonfree because redistributors may not sell the code. Guess what: GNU Affero says you must make the modified code available free of charge. Thus, it should be listed in the nonfree license section for that reasons.
Several are identified as nonfree because they restrict use, such as that the software may not be used for human rights abuses. Oops, GNU Affero has use restrictions.
> For the purpose of running it on my server without giving out my changes" is not about running it, that's about something incurred as a result of running it.
"My changes" could mean making minor changes to integrate it with 500,000 lines of my company's existing proprietary code, as well as third party proprietary code. Oops, that all has to be AGPLed if the combined program has network users. Which is a nonstarter, so such an integration shall not be made.
A GPLed program can be so combined and run for network users; nothing needs to be put under the GPL unless it is redistributed. How on earth can that be wrong, if the GPL allows it?
This is in accordance with Freedom 0.
I have no problem with the GNU Affero license existing, and people deciding that it's the best choice for their project. The problem is it being promoted and encouraged as a free license. People believe it. How could it not be free? Everyone says so, and it's from GNU/FSF.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
Straight from the gnu's mouth!
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
> But the purpose of the AGPL has nothing to do with people using the software in ways that the license chooser doesn't like
Yes it is. If you wrote a network program, and you specifically don't like the idea that someone can modify it and then host that modified version for users without letting them have the source code, then the AGPL is a tool that nicely expresses your intent.
Licenses don't care about their intent. People analyze what they do and use them accordingly.
For instance, the GPL has turned out to very nicely suit corporate interests. The copyright holder of a GPLed software component has a competitive edge over the licensees. They have to abide by the license and release all their changes, which you can help yourself to; meanwhile, you can have a proprietary version in parallel.