"No, the GPL requires that anything dependent on GPL code must be under a compatible license. You're free to release code under the BSD or X11 or zlib or apache

"No, the GPL requires that anything dependent on GPL code must be under a compatible license. You're free to release code under the BSD or X11 or zlib or apache (etc...) license. The author is just repeating the same tired old propaganda that's been shoveled out by proprietary software vendors for years." This is misleading. I'm not sure if this is intentional or due to your zealotry. If I take GPLd code, make changes, and try to release it under a BSD license, I am going against the license and will be taken to court. This is because the BSD license allows you to close the source and only release the binaries. Look at the guy from thesis. He made a Wordpress template, which used small parts of Wordpress to run, and the wordpress creators laid claim to all of his code. Most people don't realize that it wasn't in the name of the community. It was so they could make more money with their hosting services. "Most interesting opinions come from experience. If the author has never built anything significant, perhaps they ought to stop and consider where their opinions come from" You don't need to have experience with building software to understand the implications of the GPL license. "This is also wrong. The AGPL is, like the GPL, a copyright license. It only applies if the remote application (or derived data) is itself being sent to a client. For example, if I let an AGPL'd httpd serve my files, I am under no obligation to do anything at all regarding its source code." Here is a link to the AGPL license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html I took an excerpt: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this 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 by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph." This was specifically designed to prevent people from using some open source apps as web services without giving back the source. In your example, if you had an AGPL web server, you would be required to give the source code of that server to anyone that connected to it. The GPL license isn't freedom to me. It's a license used by the zealots of the community to push an agenda. Many people of the community love when companies accidentally use licensed code because it means they will be forced to give out their sources to the community. A goal that Stallman has even said himself that he hopes to achieve one day (all software being open source). Using the word "free" to describe software is also another deliberate move to confuse. If it was truly about freedom, it wouldn't happen by force. This is why I only release software under the BSD license and only use BSD software. It's very simple. You can use software in any way as long as you give credit back to the original author.