User beware: Modified AGPLv3 removes freedoms, adds legal headaches
&gt; The trial court held that this provision in the AGPLv3 applies only to downstream licensees, not when the original licensor adds them<p>I honestly feel this rationale makes sense, so I kind of agree with the courts.<p>If I&#x27;m choosing a license and I&#x27;m adding clause, it be weird that by accident one of my clause somehow invalidates my others, I&#x27;d be kind of angered if that happened without me realizing. I don&#x27;t think the intent of the writers of AGPL matters here, more so the intent of the licensors matters.<p>&gt; It was the intention of the FSF (footnote 73) that if the licensor added more restrictions, the downstream users could remove them<p>This just doesn&#x27;t doesn&#x27;t make sense to me lol. If that&#x27;s the case, why would the licensors add more clause? They&#x27;re basically irrelevant. It&#x27;s almost like the FSF intended to trick the authors who choose AGPL into not realizing what terms they were licensing their work under.<p>I get that FSF cares more about the users of a library than the authors of the library, so I understand the branding aspect. A user might have wrongly thought that AGPL meant they could resell it, and ignored reading the added clause. And I get that the combination of AGPL and the added clause would definitely be confusing to a user in the wording of AGPL with regards to removing them.<p>But in the end, I feel I like this ruling. They said you can&#x27;t call it free and open source if you don&#x27;t allow for free and open source use as part of your license. But they also said that the intended clause from the authors mattered, not the interpretation of the user, and I think that&#x27;s just to the authors.