> 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,

> 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. It's not misleading, though you seem to be misreading it. Dependent code (eg, an application depending on a GPL'd library) does not have to be under the GPL. It's completely fine to release a BSD-licensed application or library that depends on (for example) readline. The GPL only applies when you're distributing readline itself, such as in a compiled binary. > 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. The GPL doesn't allow them to "[lay] claim to all of his code", and they didn't. They laid claim to their own code, which he had copy-and-pasted into his theme. He had the option of either abiding by the licensing terms, or stopping his infringement. If his theme hadn't been based on pirated Wordpress code, he would have been able to distribute it under any license he liked. > 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. According to what law? The GPL and AGPL are copyright licenses. That means they apply whenever their covered work is being distributed. Since I am not distributing the hypothetical AGPL'd web server, I do not require copyright permission, and the AGPL does not apply. It doesn't matter what the AGPL claims. It could claim that anybody running the software must give the author a million dollars. There's no way the author could ever collect, because copyright doesn't cover running the software. > 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. Bullshit. It's not possible to force release of source code, and even if it were, that's not the point of the GPL. The GPL exists to give Free software a competitive advantage over proprietary software, by making it easier to develop and maintain. You have fallen victim to propaganda, and I suggest you educate yourself.