Software Licensing - AGPL vs GPL vs etc.

[Jesdisciple]

I was just responding to a thread (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37976) that made me (ironically - see third link below) Google upon a rather interesting conversation: Which license is best for Web applications and software in general?

For FOSS Web applications, the GPL is out (http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/13/1831245.shtml) and the AGPL is in (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3017), unless you don't really believe in FOSS (http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/30/google-hypocrisy/).

And of course the same debate is occurring from the opposite perspective (http://bassistance.de/2008/09/02/why-gpl-or-how-the-gpl-eats-the-kittens-it-protects/). Is the clarity the AGPL (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html) brings to Web applications good or bad for site owners? And is your conclusion based on ethics or corporate convenience?

I'm very curious to see what everyone thinks...

[Twey]

I agree that (ab)using the GPL in this way defeats the point of FOSS. I think a license with AGPL-style restrictions is probably preferable, although practically unimplementable right now.

[Jesdisciple]

Why would it be infeasible?

Also, if the AGPL is preferable for Web applications, does it make sense as the license for offline applications? The output of a normally offline application may at some point be automatically transmitted over the Internet; should such an application be GPL or AGPL?

I hope to hear from any anti-GPL members, too.