[aidenn0]

> And until I'm independently wealthy, I too will license AGPL. If you're making money on my stuff, I want a cut. Simple as that.

A. So much for "Not everybody has to be chasing money..." as missing the point

B. What hubris to claim that just because you wrote something it is now "yours" in any meaningful way. The copyright lobby has infected everywhere.

[mystraline]

So, what is your net-worth, in that you fight for freebies to corporations? What net worth should I strive towards so I can be nonchalant and passe about money?

I'm certainly not there.

Also more curious, is the AGPL doesn't affect humans doing stuff. It affects companies when they grab, modify, and host and not share contributions. Read about anti-TIVOization. That's why the AGPL. I'm guessing you know this, and why you're attacking my viewpoints as 'missing the point'.

And yes, copyright is everywhere. And the GPL has some of the sanest terms to reuse, as long as you follow the requirement. And the GPL also further grows the ecosystem, due to virality.

But Anthropic wasn't exactly submitting code either, were they? In my world, parasites get antiparasitic drugs.

[iqml2568]

You're mixing events. Tivoization resulted in GPLv3, while AGPL emerged as a response to SaaS.

[rcxdude]

> So, what is your net-worth, in that you fight for freebies to corporations? What net worth should I strive towards so I can be nonchalant and passe about money?

I've seen people with un-stressed about money with net-worths that are orders of magnitudes below those that seem to obsess about it.

Your motivations are your motivations, if you don't like the idea of someone using your work to make money without giving you a cut, you can do you, but why is it hard to understand that other people might just not care that much about it (or, gasp, even find their work being used more rewarding than the potential monetary compensation)

[Jensson]

> Also more curious, is the AGPL doesn't affect humans doing stuff.

It does affect humans doing stuff that isn't malicious, like if you need to solve a problem by modifying the code then now you also have to make that change public which is a hassle, I'd rather not have to track or maintain such things. I'd rather not have to think about that, and I care more about such nuisances than I care about the possibility of companies stealing it.

[flaburgan]

The scenario you are describing (discovering a problem to fix, being able to fix it, but then not sharing the fix with other people) is the exact reason why GPL has been invented: to force people to share their work, so that we can all have better software, together. Maybe the software you are using wouldn't have been that good if other people weren't forced to share their improvements. Your small effort is going to help others, and their small efforts are going to help you even more. This mindset of sharing should be natural but, as you just proved, people are lazy and so the license has to force them.