> The AGPLv3 protects freedoms - the freedoms of the users and recipients of the Software and the License, including other developers. If you combine an Open Source license with the Commons Clause, that is no longer Open Source software, in my view. It's source-available, which is completely different. If a developer adds a Commons Clause to their Open Source license, they have removed freedoms more than any Open Source license ever could.

Sorry maybe it wasn't clear -- I'm not saying the AGPL removes freedoms, I'm saying adding the commons clause does.

> Of course the AGPLv3 was not meant to prevent commercial use. That would be incompatible with the OSI's Open Source Definition, making the AGPLv3 not an Open Source license. The AGPLv3 is very easy to comply with, it's just that so many are unwilling to do so, so people come away thinking the AGPLv3 was meant to prevent commercial use.

Well aware of this, didn't link to it directly but this was the main thrust of my article that I didn't link directly:

https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

Freedom to sell commercially is indeed freedom, and one I support (selfishly, as I am working on building a cloud provider right now which is going to do so), and a bunch of startup/small software projects seem to be under the impression that AGPL is a magic ward against hosters of software.