> The standard GPL already puts "restrictions" on the latter, but at least said restrictions only apply if I choose to distribute binaries. You seem to have it

> The standard GPL already puts "restrictions" on the latter, but at least said restrictions only apply if I choose to distribute binaries. You seem to have it backwards. The GPL and the AGPL concern the relationship between the programmer and the users. They are specifically designed to: 1. Grant the users of the program the "four freedoms". 2. Forbid any third-party middlemen to strip the users of the program of these freedoms. The second point is what separates permissive "google-friendly" licences and copyleft. It doesn't make a difference for the users, but it avoids third party distributors to strip users of the program of the four freedoms. In that sense, I'd say that copyleft really gives "more freedom" to the users (unless they intend to re-distribute the program and strip other users of the freedoms that the original author granted to them). Users of AGPL software are thus assured that they will have the four freedoms forever, regardless of who distributes the program that they use. Construing the GPL or the AGPL as "putting restrictions" to the users can only be done in bad faith.