Yes. And by closing the loophole while staying viral, it makes it unlikely that anyone would ever use AGPL code. For example, if you use an AGPL CMS to power y

Yes. And by closing the loophole while staying viral, it makes it unlikely that anyone would ever use AGPL code. For example, if you use an AGPL CMS to power your website, you now need to open source the entire thing. So, I'm not saying that it is necessary to have a stronger copyleft license, I am saying that the existing copyleft license was successful because people were able to often ignore it. A lot of energy has been spent discussing the reach of GPL's virality, and its loopholes. When it comes to copyleft, the Mozilla Public License 2.0 has a much saner approach by avoiding virality all together. Share changes to the code you received, keep the rest.