> If you are saying AGPL's virus like behavior is much more severe than the GPL's virus like behavior

Well, it is, since it extends GPLs coverage to not just "linking" (a hard to define term) but also explicitly even to automation scripts.

But I'm also saying it's not just a difference in degree, but in kind.

> If I understand correctly, the open source action is only required when you "re-distribute" it. So, if you play it only by yourself and never give your modified software to anyone else, it is OK for you to keep all code close.

For GPL this is true. For AGPL it appears to apply to any artefacts or other public interactions too.

> Only in a step that you want to re-distribute the software (or the service) to people (like external user or other company) who you don't want to show source code, you are facing violating the AGPLv3.

Maybe. It's untested in courts. A very reasonable interpretation (that I subscribe to) if your BooksOnlineExample.com uses AGPL for backend storage, then that is covered by AGPL (but not GPL).

But even worse. If you use some AGPL software to compress some data as you transfer it to your backup tapes, then you are using this AGPL software in order to run BooksOnlineExample.com (after all, without backups you don't really have a service), and thus your backup script could very well be in scope for AGPL and may have to be published.

Google has some opinions on this, e.g. this: https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source...

> But generally speaking, in this step you already have a plan to make money out of external people (like user or other company), so fair enough to pay a fee for commercial license.

Ah, but AGPL is not about covering the "making money hole". It's about the "cloud hole". I would argue that GPL never had any intention of preventing people from making money.

Do you think Linus is upset that maybe tens of thousands of companies have their own patches to Linux to run their service? Do you think he's upset that even the ones that don't patch the kernel don't publish their kernel config. (I don't know if you've ever built the kernel, like "make menuconfig", but this is definitely not just "settings", but actually a vital step in order to "reproduce the same binaries as run on your production servers")

GPL was extreme when it was created. Compare it to the BSD license. Then AGPL came along and just went absolutely off the wall by having your interactions with the software bind you to publish.

> "free software" or freedom zero is good, but how engineers/companies who develop free software make survival?

To be clear, are you saying that the main goal of AGPL is to have people NOT use it? Because people who do accept and abide by the terms of the AGPL license do NOT pay for it.

AGPL only prevents use. You're assuming all AGPL software is dual-licensed, which is very much not the case. Luckily very little software is AGPL.

If it's about money, then why use AGPL at all? Why not just have a commercial license? Because you're not giving anyone even the most basic freedom with AGPL.

If the goal of choosing AGPL is to get paid or not use it, then that's just commercial software. Which is fine, but don't call it free software, since it's anything but.