Thanks for the detailed response! I see the point, although the pure license / contract is still a weird distinction IMO. > The courts seem less interested in

Thanks for the detailed response! I see the point, although the pure license / contract is still a weird distinction IMO. > The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract But why isn't AGPL explicitly structured as a contract then? They could then grant you the same rights (including ones not covered by copyright law), but on the condition that you follow the copyleft part of the agreement.