alt Hacker Newsyou're arguing with the messenger. whether or not you buy anything is completely immaterial, what matters is the actual position of legal depts in corporations. said another way this is not a normative discussion (folks SHOULD be doing X) it is a descriptive discussion (folks ARE doing X)
you're also completely missing the point. it's not on anyone to "fix" the agpl, the point is about whether the agpl as it exists is usable in practice. answer, no, not really. "software freedom" doesn't even enter the discussion.
Your position would be eminently reasonable if this comment thread were kicked off by a blog post called "Evil Corpos are Bad Guys, They Should Accept AGPL! A Treatise Out Of Nowhere."
Corporations are free to do as they choose. They can choose not to use AGPL software. That's ok, they don't owe anyone anything (arguable but let's go with it), and I'd have no leg to stand on.
But that's not what happened here. Look at the quote that kicked off this thread:
> Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license.
> This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.
Note "Shame" and "the spirit of open source." Someone kicked off this thread painting authors of AGPL software as going against the spirit of open source for promoting a license which they know big corporations shun.
At that point it's a very different context. Remember how corporations don't owe anyone anything? Neither do free software devs. That entire comment is completely wrong, and the entire thread which followed only exists in its context. Not outside. And inside that context, it is absolutely valid to talk about the spirit of open source, to talk about what "should", etc, because that's the context introduced by the comment itself.
"Software freedom" doesn't just "enter" the discussion--it is the discussion.