GPLv3 -> prevents tivoization, some companies (see Apple) are scared/annoyed by it. Doesn't stop SaaS.
AGPL -> all of the above, makes many companies deathly afraid.
Licensing, itself, is political, so you cannot separate political from non-political when it comes to the political topic of licensing.
edit: in fact, the act of copy-lefting some work is a political action.
Kind of like web standards, actually: you may think RSS/ATOM are terrible standards and JSON Feed is the only way to go, but if you're writing blogging software, it should probably be able to generate an RSS feed.
Sounds like the Non-Profit OSL 3.0: https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0
GNU complains about the following provision:
> If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.
This does seem pretty sketchy because I don't know what counts as a reasonable effort. GNU suggests that placing the software in publicly accessible version control or on an FTP server might be in violation of the license because it would allow recipients of your copies to obtain the software without providing "express consent" to the license terms. I think this is a bad requirement.
What do you mean by compatible? the GPL and the AGPL are explicitly compatible to each other.
> It [the AGPL] is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa.
In my mind, this is a pretty bad limitation. If I'm writing software for the free software community, it seems bad to me if someone working on a GPL project cannot take my code and use it as part of their project without the whole project then being under a mixed license. The terms of the AGPL would apply to a derived work even if all the other code was GPL. While it might sometimes be possible for someone to do everything they want that way, the added complexity means that using part of an AGPL project may be a non-starter even in those cases.
The AGPL is also not compatible at all with GPL 2, which many projects are still using.
Programs running on Linux are already considered not "linked" to Linux, which means they can stay closed source without breaking the terms of the kernel's GPL license. That likely wouldn't change if the kernel was AGPL: programs running on it wouldn't need to be AGPL.
So the difference would be that for direct interaction with a Linux system, the source code of the kernel would need to be released (the kernel itself, not programs)? That doesn't sound too hard at all.