[open0]

> If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL.

And this condition is the reason that the answer will be "no" every time to using copyleft. Why would anyone ever choose a piece of software which, however you want to twist words, is actually less free in the sense of what it permits and will have less adoption as a result?

I run some websites without ads used by thousands of people and I never intend to monetize them, but I would still avoid these projects solely due to their licensing.

[smichel17]

"Are copyleft licenses more or less free than permissive licenses?" is a pathological nothingburger of an argument because there is no substantial point of disagreement, except on priors, which are never discussed.

Take slavery, or indentured servitude. Nobody seriously argues (any more) that laws against these practices decrease freedom, although they technically restrict the freedom of would-be slave owners. Likewise, if "proprietary software is evil" is table stakes, then copyleft licenses are more free, period. There is no argument.

So, actually what we disagree on is "how unethical is proprietary licensing?" Arguing that permissive licenses are more free is really arguing that proprietary software isn't that bad.

Without having that argument, the other one just goes round and round I circles, like it always does.

[josephcsible]

What do you think the word "free" means exactly, in the context of software freedom?

[ms4720]

Without cost or encumbrance, just like I would expect for a physical free book. The book would not be free if I paid nothing for it and now the author has the right to sleep on my couch legally.

[q3k]

An AGPL license gives you more freedoms than the personal use rights you get from having bought/gotten a book, though.

[rocqua]

An AGPL license comes with more obligations for the one publishing the code, and for others re-using that code.

Against that are more rights for the users of the final code. GPL is predicated on advocating for users' rights over developers. But that comes at the right of developers to re-use as they want.

Which one is more free is very much a matter of perspective. Claims that GPL is a more free license because it is better for users are therefore subjective, or at least subject to a very specific semantic context.

[q3k]

> An AGPL license comes with more obligations for the one publishing the code, and for others re-using that code.

Right, but if you buy/get a book, you can't even re-publish or re-use the content in the first place.

I'm not comparing the AGPL and the GPL. I'm only talking here about the insinuation that the AGPL is somewhat like a book author requiring readers to let them crash their couches. It's not.

[josephcsible]

The only additional obligation that the AGPL requires is that you not restrict to others the freedoms that it grants to you.