I don't care so much about the AGPL specifically, but it's a single known license, rather than every time I find a new project having to find out what "interesting" license they cooked up this time.
yes but afaict SSPL was kiiinda becoming a de facto "f off AWS" license that was generally becoming standard. thats all any of these vendors want, they're not coming up with new licenses just for shits and giggles.
standards evolve over time, it was entirely possible that Grafana could have thrown its weight behind SSPL and helped legitimize it more.
This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from obstructionist to a more constructive point, where they help evolve the SSPL to address their concerns, while recognizing that it is a copyleft open source license.
The only thing that differs between SSPL and the AGPL in terms of being open source or not is that one particular group of people has decided one is Open Source(TM) and one is not.
I assume you mean the OSI. But it's not just them with a problem with the SSPL. Debian and Fedora both reject it too, independently, for being non-free.
But it is free. It solely conveys an expectation that you also release related tooling for free as well. If it's not a free license, the AGPL isn't either.
