You went for an incorrect reading of my message, and then built an entire argument against that incorrect reading of that message, and then even went on to assu

You went for an incorrect reading of my message, and then built an entire argument against that incorrect reading of that message, and then even went on to assume the people who seem to agree with me also follow that incorrect reading. Let me try to make my argument more clear. The spirit and intent of the original GPL is to use restrictions on the use of open source software, in such a way that it can only be modified and distributed and linked to other open source software that has the same provisions. This effectively limits the fields of use to companies that don't make money off proprietary software. This is the original intent of copyleft open source. Here is a quote from RMS himself: " Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong." In the 2000's however, it turned out that the GPL wasn't copyleft enough, because most software was offered as a networked service, and the GPL didn't affect this field of use strongly enough to effectively have the copyleft effect. So we got the AGPL, which extended the restrictions of copyleft to the networked software industry. And then in the 2010's it turned out that the AGPL wasn't copyleft enough, because big infrastructure builds proprietary platforms around AGPL software, and the restrictions of AGPL don't affect them as much. So that's where SSPL comes from. You might see it differently, but I think the SSPL follows this spirit.