> as it redefines simple usage to be redistribution This is an incorrect interpretation of AGPLv3. AGPLv3 only requires that you provide corresponding sources

> as it redefines simple usage to be redistribution This is an incorrect interpretation of AGPLv3. AGPLv3 only requires that you provide corresponding sources if you have modified your copy of a program, and you make it accessible to users over a network. Aside from this one provision, AGPLv3 is the same as GPLv3. From the text of the license: > [...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version That AGPLv3 explicitly states that allowing access to software through a network does not constitute "conveying", and so many of the requirements don't apply in that case. I would consider the above to be far beyond "simple usage" of a program. > your users might end up using your software in ways that you don't support. This appears to be a carried-forward error from your misinterpretation of AGPLv3. AGPLv3 doesn't restrict usage (no GPL license restricts usage). It adds restrictions for redistribution, and for allowing users to access modified versions of software over a computer network. > In this regard I think FSF has derailed from its own spirit. [...] GPLv2 just demands for the source code [...] GPLv3 on the other hand extends that with extra clauses to prevent Tivoisation. I used to feel the same way, but what caused me to change my mind is to ask why "Tivoisation" is bad and what the long-term rammifications could be of allowing such a practice. In short, the problem is that you have some software that you practically don't have the ability to change, even though you have the source code. The end result is that you will have a world of free software made effectively proprietary because you cannot exercise your freedom to change the software. That is why the FSF felt it was an issue. Now, you may not agree with the scale of the issue, and feel that the FSF over-stepped the mark. But I don't agree that the FSF has derailed from its spirit -- the spirit of the FSF is to promote free software and to protect user freedom. Disallowing a mechanism to be used that stops users from exercising one of their freedoms is very much in keeping with their spirit.