[greendragon]

I interpret a lot of AGPL projects I see as "we're willing to negotiate a secondary license to your private business". If you're the best in class (or just the only available public option) it can make sense as a way to try and make money. If there's a more liberally licensed substitution, however, it's probably best read as a "don't use me for your business" flag...

[greenshackle2]

Right, but, from a business perspective, the same argument goes for GPL vs permissive licenses; why use GPL if there's an Apache or BSD alternative.

I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts.

Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.

[cortesoft]

I don't really have a problem with this sort of practice, and I think it is reflective of the model I feel most companies should use: keep the core-to-your-business software for your company proprietary and open-source all non-core-to-your-business software. It is the only model that will help keep open-source alive and well funded.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.