Part of the problem is: “what can I do with the commercial source?”
The open-source code lets you modify and distribute. There’s either no risk (permissive) or well-understood. Proprietary licenses often don’t allow freedoms like that. So, some of the new licenses are addressing modification and redistribution of source-available, proprietary code.
Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users. Just using it almost guarantees less adoption of your code. Whether that’s fair or not, I’m just saying it’s a reality that you might be limiting the impact of FOSS code if it’s AGPL.
> Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users
Citation, please. I would say this is very untrue but would like to see the sources of this claim. I hope you are not calling Big tech employees "FOSS users".
So you are talking bullocks as I suspected. Thanks. What I see is the opposite, actually: FOSS users (aka free software developers) prefer the GPL family of licenses and the ones that know and understand AGPL also prefer it.
The open-source code lets you modify and distribute. There’s either no risk (permissive) or well-understood. Proprietary licenses often don’t allow freedoms like that. So, some of the new licenses are addressing modification and redistribution of source-available, proprietary code.
Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users. Just using it almost guarantees less adoption of your code. Whether that’s fair or not, I’m just saying it’s a reality that you might be limiting the impact of FOSS code if it’s AGPL.