Hot take, don't @ me: AGPL should never have been an OSI approved license.
The license is basically a compliance trap, and I would posit that > 99% of modified AGPL software violates the license.
This leads to a world where license enforcement is entirely up to arbitrary decisions by the copyright owner. Any contributor to an AGPL software package (without CLA) can go and mass-send C&Ds and/or request $$$, kind of like the Creative Commons copyright trolls have been doing for CC-BY violations.
That's without even getting into the fact that really, the AGPL is GPL + a "usage restriction" clause camouflaging as not being one (because that would be against the FSF's principles).
I suspect most of the AGPL users would be better served with some of the more permissive source-available licenses. Unfortunately, people seem to have allergic reactions to non-OSI approved licenses, and AGPL being OSI approved even though it sucks means it gets regarded more highly than better alternatives.
@delroth @sleevi
What's the usage restriction in the AGPL? Doesn't it basically say that users of the software have the right to modify it whether it's delivered to a computer in their possession or offered over a network connection?
There are criticisms to be made of the AGPL, but I don't see how to characterize it as a "usage restriction".
Pierre Bourdon
Ian McKellar
waldi