Administered by:
@downey
Exactly what I thought. I don't think the arguments you're responding to are made in good faith anyway. The clue is here;
@delroth
> AGPL tries to enforce usage restrictions, which are against Free Software principles
Copyleft is not a "usage restriction", it's a prohibition on such restrictions (via proprietary re-use).
> via weird copyright hacks that don't really work
Factually wrong. GPL has been enforced in court on multiple occasions by SFLC, SFC and others.
@strypey you're fighting a strawman. I never said that copyleft was a usage restriction, or that GPL didn't work.
I said that AGPL's attempt at using a copyright license to try and enforce terms on usage (but not really, wink wink) is an untested hack which is full of loopholes.
I'm unsure why you're inserting yourself in a discussion about open source licenses when you don't seem to differentiate GPL from AGPL.
@delroth @strypey I don't see AGPLv3's obligations in "usage" of the software to be substantially different to how GPLv3 can be "used" (or not used) to create new software works.
For example, to enjoy the permission to run the program for any purpose (Freedom 0), you have to make a promise not to enforce DRM anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA for derivative works. You are effectively "restricted" from creating a Digital Rights Management system by "using" GPLv3 software components.