> I feel that we're in a post-revolutionary phase of open source[1] -- and we no longer need the radical instruments of the GPL (and certainly not the AGPL). I

> I feel that we're in a post-revolutionary phase of open source[1] -- and we no longer need the radical instruments of the GPL (and certainly not the AGPL). I think this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I prioritise the needs of users to have software that they have the right to control and modify (which allows for "software mechanics" to fix bugs and so on). Upstream contribution is not, and has never been, a goal of the GPL. The concept of "upstream" is a development workflow which is entirely separate to what license you use. Some people do attempt to force others to follow a workflow by using the GPL, but I think such attempts are doomed to fail in most cases. Others (such as Linux) do it by making their software move at a very fast pace to make out-of-tree maintenance hard, which actually works much better. The GPL has always been a license for the benefit of users, not developers (though of course, developers are users too). So the focus on contribution and wide-spread use is IMO missing the point of the GPL. Yes, you get contributions (in general) from it, but that's because it just so happens that upstream contribution is one of the few viable workflows with free software. It's got nothing to do with the GPL. I completely understand why you're prioritising contribution and creating a healthy community, but in my opinion building a community around the base of "I want this software to have a community around it so that the software works well for the community." isn't really as fulfilling as saying "I want this software to set users free from proprietary alternatives, and the community that has formed shares in these ideals." Of course, each to their own and all that.