So I saw on one of the Video game boards (I was on the overboard so I don't know which) a thread about video game licenses. Surely we're all in agreement that AGPL is the only non corporate bootlicker option right? Even ordinary GPL isn't really good enough here, because nothing's stopping any large gaming company from just streaming their altered version of the game over the internet and never needing to give out the source code. Honestly, big companies could do that with just about any software. That's why I heavily emphasize using AGPL over GPL for software you really don't want to get stolen.
I remember reading that the AGPL was originally going to be just the next version of the GPL, but Google (and I think some other companies) threatened the FSF with banning GPL software from any websites they hosted if they went through with it, so they made it a separate license instead. It kinda makes sense, because there's no difference between the GPL and AGPL except for the extra "network use as distribution". There's not really any reason to not just use AGPL everywhere you would otherwise use GPL unless you specifically dislike the network clause, which just gives web companies like Google an amazon a huge advantage, and free reign to not give back to the community. Since that's the whole point of copyleft licenses, I get get why GPL is still much more.