@ffeth @gargron @rysiek Also the #AGPL does allow to make profit. And that's fine. But it requires to play a fair game. That's what the BigTech companies fundamentally don't like. Because many fundamentally can't play such a fair game.

@t0k @ffeth @Gargron that's all correct. In practice, though, Big Tech will do anything they can to keep away from AGPL'ed code, as exemplified by Google's internal policies banning their employess and contractors from even having AGPL'ed code on their work laptops:
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/

> Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office.

@rysiek @ffeth @gargron I wonder if that's not somehow part of a smear campaign against the #AGPL. Because technically, I see no problem for Google if its employees use some AGPL program on their laptops. They don't run publicly accessible services from their laptops.

To me feels like it's more about fighting the AGPL in general because it's bad for them. Imagine all FOSS would be AGPL: BigDisaster for BigTech.

@t0k @rysiek @ffeth @Gargron

> Imagine all FOSS would be AGPL: BigDisaster for BigTech

Wasn't there talk of putting this “you must distribute even if over a network” AGPL thing into what would become the GPLv3? Obv that was not included in v3, hence why AGPL was created. It's a shame they didn't do that (maybe GPLv4 🤔), and instead put something against “Tivo-ization” which in retrospect was almost pointless...

@ebel @t0k @rysiek @ffeth @Gargron Yeah, GPLv4 or v5 really need to go full commie. There are too many capitalist loopholes. Like, it doesn’t specify the project should be buildable by the general public or any changes have to be public regardless.

The GPL is not as fearsome as it could be.