Why the nonfree AGPL? Are you seriously worried that someone is going to fork this and make money with it, given that anyone else could vibe code another one in a few hours?
To be honest, I didn't think about it for too long. I choose licenses based on intuition. I put a lot of work into this tool, I knew it would require a lot of effort, and besides, I created it precisely because someone else turned a similar project into a money-making machine, completely abandoning the original ideals. Therefore, I felt that AGPL, which requires code disclosure and non-profit use, is the way to go.
Yes. Besides AGPL makes a lot of sense for any web based tool, as it keeps the original intent of the GPL.
I don't get the hate/questioning on it either. It's a good balance if you want to prevent straight up cloning/stealing for profit motives while still making it open.
1. Why do you ask? Do you intend forking and making money out of it?
2. Why are you lying about AGPL being nonfree? As far as I'm concerned, it is free as in free speech for me as a user. This was the initial goal of the GPL. The freedom of the end user is the main value of the GPL family of licenses. So serious question: why are you lying? Is it intentional, or due to your lack of understanding?
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.
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.
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.
