Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs.

You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.

What specifically is your problem with the AGPL? I read both of your links and while there are a lot of incisive statements ("But the truth is, the AGPL isn't used to increase user freedom — it's used to restrict it, primarily through its legal ambiguities") you never spell out why you believe them.

> Author's note: the above thoughts are for how the AGPL is used in startup-land alongside a CLA — not for AGPL in general. The AGPL is a fine open source license for libraries and other infrastructure.

The whole piece is about CLAs, the AGPL has absolutely nothing to do with signing over your copyrights. See Canonical for the same behaviour without the AGPL, the AGPL just requires that you allow your users to also see the code they are using, even if it is accessed over a network.

> Many, like Google, have flat out banned the AGPL.

Yeah, but that's because Google hates sharing what they have built on the shoulders of giants.

You might take that up with the FSF, which clearly disagrees with you about its "affront".

Using a FOSS license and charging money for an alternative license is not abuse. And those blog posts appear to be FUD spread by a company whose own software is under proprietary licenses with source available.

People are welcome to use and host AGPLed software under its own FOSS terms. If people don't want to do that, and want to pay for alternative terms, that is also a sign that the license is effective. There's no point in restricting things people don't want to do. The GPL restricts something people want to do: make proprietary software. The AGPL restricts something people want to do: host software without distributing the source at all.

Gee I wonder why a proprietary software licensing company would want to disparage the AGPL.