I’d suggest spending the time and money on something that actually achieves something that matters.

Does it really matter that this project doesn’t offer to send you a paper copy of the source code you can download for free anyway?

As I understand it, AGPL has further implications than your response implies, because it transitively applies to modifications and linking.

Giving up on expecting copyleft licenses to be enforceable seems reasonable.

Open source wins by overwhelming closed-source advocates with quality code that moves too fast for them to keep up by maintaining their own private codebases or private forks, giving practical incentives to participate in the broader ecosystem.

> Giving up on expecting copyleft licenses to be enforceable seems reasonable.

No, it seems horrible. We need more free software, not less.

Seems to me the parent is suggesting the same amount of open source code but less copyleft.

Leftophobia is a terrible affliction. I wonder if the "left" in "Copyleft" is what turns so many people off...

not a real thing

There's no "we" here. If you don't like copyleft code, then don't use it and write your own. It's pretty simple.

Fixed, thanks.

So open source wins by writing code whose internal APIs change so rapidly that corporate forks maintained by full-time employees can't keep up, while somehow not confusing the heck out of the part-time open-source contributors. That... doesn't sound possible.