AGPL is exactly the spirit of open source. The license used by bear violates freedom 0. AGPL ensures that freedom 1, 2 and 3 are allowed even in hosted services scenarios.

Freedom 0 the freedom to use the work

Freedom 1 the freedom to study the work

Freedom 2 the freedom to copy and share the work with others

Freedom 3 the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works

the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source. When I advocate for the agpl to prevent Amazon and Google using my software, it’s not because of who those companies are, but how they use it.

If Amazon tomorrow turns around and open sources everything that is a derivative work of the code they ever used, I would be more than happy, even proud if they used my software. Today any company which doesn’t deny their users the core software freedoms is already free to do so.

This is not a “hack” to be maliciously compliant OSS; this is the spirit of open source.

Why do you think the GPL has the virality clause in the first place?

Edit: a perhaps reductive, but hopefully instructive summary: MIT/BSD guarantee freedoms of the software developers, GPL guarantees freedoms of the software users.

You are free to choose which you prefer, but they're quite explicit choices, and the AGPL is absolutely squarely in the spirit of the GPL.

(Now if you had said you take issue with the tivoization clause, on the other hand... :) :))

It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.