> If you do like the GPL this merely fixes an important corner case. Disagree. As the article states, it's importantly different from the GPL, even under the F

> If you do like the GPL this merely fixes an important corner case. Disagree. As the article states, it's importantly different from the GPL, even under the FSF's own philosophy. As others have already pointed out, it could be said to infringe on Freedom Zero, The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. [0] At the risk of just writing a far inferior rehash of the article: under the GPL, you can take code, modify it (Freedom 1), and run that code on your machine under whatever terms you want, e.g. as an Internet-enabled service. You are not obligated to publish the resulting source code, provided you also refrain from publishing the binaries corresponding to the modified source. With the AGPL, that's no longer the case. One could argue it's just a matter of degree, as the GPL imposes rules on linking against non-GPL code, but I think the difference is still an important one. Following copyleft, the FSF understanding of being free to do something typically doesn't preclude free but with an obligation to release your source under a Free Software licence. They do seem to have a limit though. The FSF consider the Watcom 1.0 licence to be non-Free because of its far-reaching source-publication requirements, which can apply even to private use. [1] The AGPL does something similar, except it only applies when your deployment is publicly accessible. (This is, of course, the whole point.) Quite apart from all that, this isn't the first time I've read of technical legal issues with the way the licence is written, far exceeding those of the GPLv3. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Watcom-1.0 https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Watcom-1.0