> I would only release via Affero-GPL from now on.

Fine with me. Do as you please.

Everyone else keep in mind that your potential userbase drops dramatically if you only offer your software under AGPL. Even adding a commercial option in addition makes AGPL more usable.

I always avoid AGPL altogether. The idea that if I change 1 line of code I now have to setup a public repository is just crazy to me. Unless my reading of the AGPL is entirely wrong?

> The idea that if I change 1 line of code I now have to setup a public repository is just crazy to me.

Like with GPL you only have to provide source code on demand.

Also you can always link original project and provide patch applied.

To be fair, Google has contributed a ton of code back to the community.

They have also made Linux relevant on the "desktop" (if you consider Android / Chromebooks desktop substitutes).

Net net, I would say their use of open source has been a benefit to the community.

What Oracle patent trick are you talking about? If you're referring to the Java suit (Oracle v. Google), the Federal Circuit didn't issue a decision that found Google in violation of any patents. Google is currently awaiting a response from the Supreme Court to Google's petition to hear the case so that it may find Google's actions to be noninfringing under copyright, not patent law.

FSF and others were safe because they used a GPL-derived IcedTea codebase (earlier Sun code). That license protected from patent abuse and many other things. Apache and Google didn't take that path and it came back to haunt them. There were many threats. If I were Stallman, I would've died of a stroke lauging (ASF was very harsh on FSF/Stallman and anti-GPL).

> FSF and others were safe because they used a GPL-derived IcedTea codebase (earlier Sun code). That license protected from patent abuse

There very definitely isn't any patent indemnification provided by the GPLv2—which is the (only) version in effect for OpenJDK. That fact is a big reason why GPLv3 exists.

> Apache and Google didn't take that path and it came back to haunt them

In what way? This question was the entire point of my last comment, but it remains unanswered.

let's not forget the current systemd loophole, by allowing proprietary applications to bypass GPL restrictions via RPC.

The legally-gifted amongst the free software movement should probably fork GPLv3 to insert a clause about good faith efforts to ensure the application doesn't circumvent the license.

I believe the MS-PL does this, which is closer to BSD-like.