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.
"I suspect most of the AGPL users would be better served with some of the more permissive source-available licenses."
I'm curious what you mean here. By users presumably you mean of the license rather than users of the software. Is that right? If so, what are you thinking of as the goals of AGPL licensors that would be furthered by source available licenses?
Pierre Bourdon
Drew 🐘