Another major issue is remixing and license compatibility. AGPL is part of an ecosystem. Anything MIT, BSD, current GPL, etc. will freely mix with AGPL.

Most of the other licenses, I can't use in any of my projects without running into license compatibility issues.

Notably AGPL is also DFSG free, meaning that AGPL licensed software can be included in Debian and its derivatives. I believe its also fine in other major distros (RHEL/SuSE etc).

I don't value OSI's stamp of approval since they were explicitly founded to coopt FSF's effort and make it more corporate friendly. Obviously corporate lawyers would disagree with me.

A license that allows all typical freedoms except "use the software to start a SaaS using proprietary infrastructure" is fine by me.

While there are significant ideological disagreements between the OSI and FSF, when it comes to FOSS licenses their definitions are mostly equivalent. There are very few licenses that are recognized by the OSI but not by the FSF, and vice-versa.

Proprietary infrastructure = All infrastructure essentially.

So you're fine with a license that can't be used for SaaS. So basically you're happy for the commercial internet to be powered by proprietary software - with all that would mean for free software.

That's pretty much the same as AGPL. A tell about OSI's biases is that AGPL and SSPL are basically the same but since Amazon's propaganda engine ramped up against SSPL it was labeled as somehow completely out of bounds.

How are they pretty much the same? AGPL only require the changes to the software itself to be shared under AGPL and it's apply the same requirement for everyone.

SSPL require to release source code for every piece of your infrastructure if your business model seems like Amazon. This is descrimination which both FSF and OSI are not allow.

> AGPL and SSPL are basically the same

Are you serious? Once you look past the most superficial level, they're not even close.