It is objectively true. AGPL does not meet the definition of free software, because it restricts the use of the software when modified.

The FSF pretends this isn't true by pretending that some uses are actually redistribution. However, this is too clever by half. Redistribution has a well-settled meaning, and allowing interaction over a network—unless it involves downloading the software itself—does not meet that definition.

▲

jakelazaroff 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Let's grant your definition of "redistribution" for the sake of argument. How does the license restrict your use of any modified versions of the software? Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?

▲

torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-]

Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions.

Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?

▲

jakelazaroff 5 days ago | parent [-]

No assumptions here! You said that the AGPL "restricts the use of the software when modified", so I'm just asking specifically what the restrictions are.

	▲	torstenvl a day ago \| parent [-]
		No... you asked "Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?" HN is for intellectual curiosity. Not gaslighting ideological battles. Conditions on freedom are restrictions. Something doesn't have to be an outright prohibition to be an impingement on freedom. It's dishonest to pretend like anything short of a prohibition is unrestricted freedom.

▲

pabs3 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The extra network clause triggers on modification, not redistribution.

	▲	torstenvl 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]