> AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use.

No, it doesn’t. It just requires that you release the source code of the modifications.

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-lice...

An open source licence can’t prevent any use, otherwise it would no longer be an open source licence.

AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult.

AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.

And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed.

If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it?

A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification.

> If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to.

Charities, research institutions, etc can't afford to pay, and usually can't open source their projects.

If we move to an industry where AGPL is standard without any exemption for closed-source non-commercial use, we prevent the usage that nobody would object to.

No one is entitled to use other people's work free of obligations, although they are sometimes allowed to do so through the generosity (and sometimes naivety) of others.

Aren't we discussing what a reasonable industry standard for those obligations could be?

That's what this entire thread is...

GPL says no usage without sharing.

LGPL says no modification without sharing.

AGPL says no usage without sharing.

We're seeing people move from LGPL to AGPL, which has generally unintended consequences.

What would charities have to pay? If you’re non-commercial why would you balk at releasing your modifications?

> If you’re non-commercial why would you balk at releasing your modifications?

It's not modifications, it's your entire application. AGPL doesn't have the linking exception.

Using an APGL library means I have to open source my account management code, or my data anonymisation system, etc.

Of course I'm perfectly happy to open source modifications, but that's not AGPL, that's LGPL (or ALGPL I guess?)