[sneak]

Re 1: No, I don’t run paid internet services, only free ones. I just think it’s silly when people distribute software and pretend it’s free software but slap an anti-commercial-use EULA on it.

Not lying: The AGPL plainly violates freedom 0.

https://sneak.berlin/20250720/the-agpl-is-nonfree/

[c0m4r]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. It's purely a matter of perspective. I find such restrictions acceptable in free licenses. Besides, as you pointed out, these licenses don't matter anyway, since anyone can use AI and write their own tool :) This choice of license is just my suggestion, or if you prefer, a manifesto that I don't want open source projects to become closed source, that's all.

[koiueo]

Your initial question had your ungrounded assumption/opinion embedded in it. I did the same to you. Not the thing I usually do.

Your reasoning has plenty of strawman arguments and opinions. Starting from SaaS is not software, to how AGPL is impossible to comply with, because when you commit, the source goes out of sync with the running code.

IMO you still miss the point of GPL: it's to protect users.

As soon as you start offering your software (as a service or otherwise), you become a vendor. AGPL then is not for you, it's for users you're serving.

Finally, to enforceability. The only enforceable laws in our world have always been laws of physics. Everything else is a social construct, which, depending on your social status and immediate surrounding, applies to you at various degrees (sometimes not at all). All the laws produced by society only align our common expectations, but none is absolutely enforceable.

IMO, AGPL is the best idealistic scenario for end users. And society would only win if the expectations set by AGPL became the norm.

// Typed from my phone