> If I decide to use one of their templates such as AGPL and then I add more terms and conditions, it is clear I'm trying to add restrictions. And you are free

> If I decide to use one of their templates such as AGPL and then I add more terms and conditions, it is clear I'm trying to add restrictions. And you are free to do that. But you cannot call it an AGPL license any more, especially if it clashes with the original intent of the AGPL license - to provide users the right to the source of the software, to modify it, and to redistribute it commercially or non-commercially under the same license directly or indirectly (SaaS). The court also partly endorsed this position by asserting that Neo4j was doing false advertising by claiming its software was "free and opensource" because the changes made to the license invalidated this. > Are there copyright on license templates themselves? Some commenters have claimed here that they do, but they are also "open source". I don't know about that. But I am sure FSF has valid grounds to argue that if one of their license is changed to invalidate their original intent, such license shouldn't be referred to as an FSF license (like GPL or AGPL). That's what Neo4j was doing - they were calling their license "AGPL with Commons Clause". And even the judge pointed out that this was false advertising. Which makes sense - Firefox is opensource, but if you modify it to include malware and redistribute it as Firefox, Mozilla will obviously not like that as you are damaging their brand. (Ofcourse, that would be a trademark dispute, not a copyright one).