My teachers almost universally prefer Canvas Instructure (AGPLv3 free software) to Google Classroom. It gives them far more power and freedom to build courses.

Granted, it has a terrible UX for students. But since it is free software, it gave me freedom to build my own interface by providing an API– unlike Google Classroom– which I used to build a better interface to view my due quizzes. I can then share this software with my fellow students, promoting the values of sharing.

But is it because it is AGPL? My wife is a professor who also uses Canvas. She knows how to program. If I turned to her right now and asked what AGPL was or what Canvas' license was she wouldn't know nor would she care. If I asked her how she'd start modifying Canvas to solve her problems she'd tell me she is already way too busy and isn't going to try something like that in a million years.

The point is that this software needs to compete by being better software, not by convincing people that FLOSS applications are morally righteous.

What percentage of faculty members have ever modified the source for Canvas? I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000th.

> It gives them far more power and freedom to build courses.

This is a sign of a good UX.

One impactful thing the FSF could do is create a case study the history and incentive structure of this project and extract lessons on how to structure other projects well.

> it has a terrible UX for students.

Just to check: Do you mean that it is frustrating UX or that it is unattractive? People often think that UX means graphic design.