Most people never get that far, because they write the license off as an attack on principles. The debate about the substance didn’t really get to happen.

As for public performance, I’m not aware of any case law to suggest that the public performance right applies to software as you suggest. And I’ve never seen FSF or independent legal counsel argue that GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are functionally equivalent due to background law.

The FSF theorists I’ve read describe AGPL as “synthesizing” a public performance right for software that doesn’t otherwise exist under current copyright law. They do so out of two existing exclusive rights: the right to prepare derivative works (making changes or building larger programs) and the right to reproduce in copies (incidental to use).

Van Lindberg has done a lot of work on public performance recently. You might like to read his blog.

Literally this entire conflict could go away if critics of the FSF just used the term "Source Available". What would be wrong with that?

Why does our community need to be the one to give up our terms and muddy years of existing language, documentation, and cultural association? What exactly is the problem with just using the words "Source Available"? If someone develops a new license, why is it suddenly my responsibility to redefine the terminology I used for everything I've ever built?

Large corporations are now stepping the unwritten meaning held by one portion who were previously satisfied with the overall outcome. Before, these people didn't care who owned the term as long as the goal was achieved. Now that the situation has changed these people want the phrase to mean what they always believed it meant. Even though you might not have been aware this difference even existed.

The meanings of words change with the progress of humanity. Nobody gets to hold on to a word like free just because they're comfortable with its current usage.

The current evolution of language like "free" is a political movement pushed by political actors; it's not based on an observation of how culture has evolved, but on a belief about how culture should evolve -- specifically how culture should evolve to benefit specific business interests.

In other words, Mongo didn't wake up one morning and discover that FOSS had changed, Mongo made a decision to try and change FOSS.

Of course, businesses and critics have the right to argue about FOSS definitions, and traditional FOSS advocates have a right to tell them to buzz off and stop stealing the positive associations that exist in no small part because we were dogmatic about definitions.

My position is that there are scenarios where dogmatism about words is genuinely important, and that sometimes, changing definitions should be resisted. The muddying of FOSS is no different from the muddying of words like "organic" or "humane" as labels for food products. Without a strong governing organization like FSF to prevent the dilution of these terms, the terms will quickly become meaningless and useless for end-users and consumers. FOSS may not be a purely prescriptive term, but that doesn't mean that every database product on the market should be able to manipulate it whenever they feel like they aren't making enough money.

The change, if there is one, won't be because of you or me. It will happen over a few years time or it won't happen. It will be driven by what people accept and what they don't. A few extremely loud voices may turn the tide in either direction so maybe there's good reason for each side digging in their heels and making noises. Either way, each individual's idea of free software will exist under the names that evolve out of this skirmish. Both businesses and coders will adapt.

They are trying to take other people’s stuff. They can’t just walk away with all the good Will and social capital Free Software has built up over the years because it’s beneficial to their shareholders. That’s the attack, it’s a smash and grab, and that’s why FOSS is fighting for its life in this.