ebelIMO, the GNU Affero GPL preserves the spirit, and aims, of the GPL than the GPLv3
GPL aims is "If someone uses code you open source, then all users can get the source of that app"
In the past, external users would mostly get software they ran themselves. Hence GPL2 "share-alike" kicks in when software is *distributed*
Today, many many people access software of the internet (SaaS etc). GPL2/3 doesn't guarantee users access to source code, so it's against the spirit & aim
I get the BSD v GPL difference. I see why people say "BSD is more free", and that's fine. It's your code, licence it how you like
But I'm not sure why someone would choose GPL2/3 over AGPL!
The point of GPL is ensure users have the source! So why not ensure that? Why not use AGPL??
AGPL (or GPL to a degree) is not much liked by corporations. Some see this as a disadvantage. I see it as an advantage.
"Your software licence doesn't allow my corporation to use traditional business models to make money!!" "Yes that's the point"
System Operator@ebel I favor vanilla GPL for end-user applications, AGPL for services hosted on behalf of end users, and BSD/MIT for libraries where the "end user" is another developer and wide adoption has benefits of its own.
@sysop Isn't everything in GPL covered in AGPL? Why not use AGPL for your end user apps? (serious Q)
@ebel It can put end users in a position where they have to worry about whether their slightly unconventional use of the software will suddenly break license terms.
@sysop how so? If they release the source code of the app, aren't they in compliance? As in, *worst case* they have to release the code, and what's wrong with that? :confused:
@ebel I'm assuming most end users don't even know what source code is or how they would/could/should publish it.
@ebel But if an end user forks a GPL project and makes it into some kind of service, then I'd encourage changing the fork to AGPL.