Yep, these licenses are banned in Amazon for example. I am also refusing to use AGPL projects because I think free supposed to be free in the BSDL sense and not some weird awkward way that AGPL is trying to force on people.
And the licenses are 2 totally different animals anyhow... BSD license incidentally grants some freedom... but FSF's licenses are designed to protect it.
I measure freedom in the license context by how much I have to do using a certain licensed software.
MIT, BSDL, Apache, EPL -> nothing
AGPL -> I need to open up every single thing that touches the service that uses AGPL
Which one is more free? In my interpretation the former. Please convince me that AGPL is more free than the other licenses. On the top of all that jazz, I really dislike the GPL/Gnu agenda of defining freedom to me. Let me show you what is the definition of freedom:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Opening open source code that I have no intention to open up sounds pretty restraining to me and also it qualifies as hindrance...
And even then one can argue if the AGPL serves this best, because it also doesn't really help users if no-one offers services based on the software because they don't trust the legal situation.
- Yeah right, please explain this to my mom. She is a user of my software. Thank you in advance.
- Even if it was about my users you cannot re-define freedom for them aka same thing applies as I wrote above
- My users are also corporations and they banned AGPL
Checkmate. :)
I think you may be confusing your freedoms with your concrete possibilities (i.e what you can do).
Also, you need to distinguish the freedom of your users (X) from the freedom of the redistributors (Y). The (A)GPL licenses are about taking away some of Y to increase X.