If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor would you want to.
Free software is an ideology, like human rights. You can’t use it only sometimes and be said to support it.
The Tivo-ization process of the 90s shows that while this might be frequently true, it isn’t without exception. From a practical standpoint, continuing to provide for user freedom would have been best accomplished (personal opinion) if many projects had been able to move to a more AGPL style license.
> For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
My amateur understanding is that the major kernel copyright holders are essentially comfortable with Tivoization and aren't looking to rock the boat with a lawsuit.
What if there was an extreme license that simply said you have to share it upon request from anyone, even private versions? Ignoring whether that's annoying or whether it's enforceable, would that be non-free?
I've seen an argument that the particular way the AGPL is worded makes it non-free, which seems pretty plausible, but I don't think that's an argument against "a more AGPL style license".
When you publish an open-source project, people are going to assume you want your project to be open source. This often provides an enormous boost to the project, as people are way more willing to contribute to a collaborative community project than just donating time to some for-profit company.
I am totally fine with companies making proprietary for-profit software, but don't leech off the open-source community by pretending to be something you are not. I am at a point where I assume any company-backed project with a CLA is going to do a bait-and-switch as soon as that becomes the more profitable option. Remember kids: corporations are not your friend.
The linked article is precisely a counter example to this point!
Are you claiming the MPL is not a free software license?