> _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. Heads up: calling out the virality of copyleft licenses as a "restriction" is a common tactic used by

> _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. Heads up: calling out the virality of copyleft licenses as a "restriction" is a common tactic used by the anti-FOSS brigade — this includes the likes of Microsoft under Steve Ballmer that famously called the GPL "a cancer". So it seems like you're re-using old FUD tactics, even if you don't intend to. Putting that aside, what you claim also happens to be an established point of argument that has been already heavily debated upon in the FLOSS community, specifically by the permissive licenses' side; and they actually have some truth to the claim. Your claim, instead, is nowhere near as strong as theirs. Permissive licenses take away virality, sure, but add little-to-no restrictions of their own. Your license, OTOH: 1. Doesn't take away nearly as much virality — Derivative Works of code under the TSL are still subject to the TSL; and 2. Adds its own set of restrictions — quite a few of them, actually. ---- If your argument was that you "designed the Timescale License to be less restrictive than AGPL _specifically on the question of virality_", you'd be right. Because the TSL also adds a bunch of restrictions, your original claim does not quite stand up.