[ethin]

I mean... I don't really see how they are. Technically they are but at the same time they aren't, because the set of conditions make the loosening of the AGPL a conditional thing. Which to me sounds like a violation of the AGPL because it's a further restriction: "We will (not) hold the AGPL against you... As long as you do these things..." I... Really don't think the AGPL was written to be... Abused? That way.

[mappu]

You can see the spirit of what they're going for also with the MIT binaries - that's also like saying the whole project is AGPL, but a loosening for using it as-is.

Given their goals seem to be

- Permissive use without modification, even in combined works ("MIT binaries"); but

- Copyleft with modification, including for the Affero "network hole", or commercial terms

could you suggest a clearer license option? AGPL triggers copyleft across combined works, LGPL doesn't cover the network hole, GPL has both problems. Their goals seem really reasonable, honestly, there should be a simple answer. It seems messy but I like it more than the SSPL/BSL/other neo-licenses.

[ethin]

I don't know anything more reasonable, but I would argue that this (isn't) reasonable precisely because it causes so much confusion due to the ambiguity and their refusal to clarify exactly what the terms really are.