What really annoys me is when someone decides to build a corporation around an open source project, and then you get the usual blog post around users not paying or OSS not being sustainable. Yes, using OSS as your marketing and adoption strategy is probably not very reliable and can cause users to use your OSS as if it was OSS, that is, without giving anything back. But usually those projects succeed because they are OSS, and would've had basically no users otherwise. Who would've used MongoDB, elastic search, or redis if they were proprietary and required a paid license from the get go?
In a way, that's also true in this case (success came from being OSS) but again, I get why it seems unfair for some when it's a non profit not being able to sustain itself or get contributions for corporate users.
GPL or Affero GPL plus proprietary license. Of course this puts off outside contributors so not if you want a "bazaar" development mode—but people complaining about this are usually not doing so.
I remember learning about Affero at a Perl Conference in the late 90's or so.
It’s like Microsoft’s VS Code nonsense where all the important bits are non free, or any company with “open core”. They don’t care about software freedoms; it’s just open source cosplay.
If both licenses are accepted by essentially everyone as inherently fully free software licenses, and they don't contradict each other, then what's not to like?
Consider the appropriate example here, which isn't anything to do with AGPL (which many people do NOT accept as a free software license), but rather the AL2 / GPL pairing which was the evolution of the original pairing created by the inventor of dual licensing (Larry Wall).
What's your beef with Artistic License 2.0 / GPL dual licensing?
They forgot to read the footnote on how it actually works in capitalist and money driven societies.