AGPL is often used by startups to achieve the effect of “fair source” licenses while still being able to claim to be fully OSS.

AGPL is a poor “fair source” license and a controversial OSS license.

AGPL in “fair source” projects are always paired with Contributor License Agreements etc that ensures the company behind it owns all the rights to the project and can re-license it however they want without having to abide by AGPL themselves. Which is not in the spirit of OSS at all. And if the company goes out of business, then AGPL makes it really hard for anyone else to eventually pick up and continue on the “fair source” business model of the project.

Using a proper “fair source” license like the Business Source License or the Functional Source License will make for a better and more honest “fair source” phase of the project and both those licenses will resolve to non-controversial OSS licenses over time.

So:

- Is “fair source” in the spirit of “open source”? No

- Is AGPL an “open source” license? Yes

- Is AGPL often used to OSS-wash “fair source” projects? Yes

- Are all AGPL projects “fair source” projects? No, there exists proper OSS-projects with AGPL licenses

- Is AGPL in startup projects almost always paired with CLA:s that makes the startup play by different rules than everyone else? Yes

- Is it more in the spirit of “open source” or “fair source” to have the startup play by different rules than everyone else? In the spirit of “fair source”

- Is AGPL a good choice for “fair source” projects? No, it perpetuates the different rules between the startup and the community forever, even after the startup has ceased to exist, whereas proper “fair source” licenses convert to less extreme OSS licenses over time

Edit: The only company that I know that does an AGPL project in an “open source” spirit rather than a “fair source” spirit is Sourcehut: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-...