I think he was referring to Chris DiBona, not to RMS. See http://www.linux.com/feature/118677

So it’s interesting to note why Google restricts the set of allowable licenses (and Brad Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center did an excellent job of this in his post to Fabrizio
Capobianco’s blog — http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2008/03/google-blocking-agpl-in-google-code.html#c4629641731974008715).

@Logan: With regards to your claim: “This is the same guy who was against Microsoft licenses being officially recognized as “Open Source Licenses” because they weren’t “free enough”. God bless hypocrisy, because he always done so.”

What’s your source for RMS saying this?

At first blush, your comment reads like someone who doesn’t understand that RMS isn’t in the open source movement, someone who might be attributing something to him and then arguing against that point (hence the quote at the end about not attacking straw men). So I’d like to know where I can find RMS advocating against Microsoft’s licenses being considered “open source” for any reason, particularly because “they weren’t ‘free enough’”.

RMS has spent plenty of time in talks and essays explaining how he doesn’t want his work or the free software community he founded (over a decade before the Open Source Initiative began the open source movement, by the way) “lumped in with them [the open source movement]” (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html and the updated essay which is linked from that same location). RMS wrote: “We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don’t want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views.”

So I’d find it surprising if he were advocating one way or another on which licenses the Open Source Initiative approved of. To my knowledge RMS doesn’t even advocate as such regarding the licenses he wrote.

So he was basically saying, “you can use AGPL, but not here”.

Is the AGPL some form of cigarette (to Google)? Sure sounds like it.

It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com
by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one
thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer
is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.

So he was basically saying, “you can use AGPL, but not here”. I actually see not much of an issue here.

AGPL sounds interesting, I’d like to see a vBulletin equivalent on it. Perhaps if I had the time…

This is the same guy who was against Microsoft licenses being officially recognized as “Open Source Licenses” because they weren’t “free enough”. God bless hypocrisy, because he always done so.