As I said, the intentions are good, but in practice these licenses are used as an actual incentive for companies to purchase the commercial alternative for redistribution.
But that's only true for a small minority of GPLv3 software. The exact same small minority that requires copyright assignment to a for-profit corporation.
Saying "licenses such as AGPL and GPLv3 are hurting open-source" is complete and utter FUD. A non-FUD way of saying it would be something like, "copyright assignment to for-profit corporations hurts the free software movement".
If there is no copyright assignment to a mischievous corporation, then GPLv3 is practically strictly superior to GPLv2 in terms of software freedom.
Saying "licenses such as AGPL and GPLv3 are hurting open-source" is complete and utter FUD. A non-FUD way of saying it would be something like, "copyright assignment to for-profit corporations hurts the free software movement".
If there is no copyright assignment to a mischievous corporation, then GPLv3 is practically strictly superior to GPLv2 in terms of software freedom.