The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with
> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL.<p>That's why people don't use AGPL, and why I personally don't release any code under (A)GPL. If you want to make free software, make <i>free software</i> and release your code under Apache or MIT. And if you really care about attribution, use CC BY 3.0. Legally, you don't want to deal with the burden of constantly checking if you're complying with some license that a dependency of a dependency of a dependency is using.<p>> By discouraging the use of AGPL in the broader community, Google hopes to create a larger set of free- and open-source software that they can take for their own needs without any obligations to upstream...<p>This is true, and I don't see much wrong with it. I don't like the idea of other code <i>mandating</i> how I should release my code. What if I just don't feel like <i>up-streaming</i>? Free is meant to be <i>free</i>, and (A)GPL <i>does</i> incur a cost -- at the bare minimum an ideological one.<p>A lot of reactionary down-voting going on; I'm quite open to debate. Why are <i>you</i> so passionate about AGPL?