I sympathize to some degree, but true OSS is an important distinction for many and should be highlighted.
This!, in my experience lawyers will deny the use of AGPL software, even when there is no risk (from my point of view). Many companies have already a list of blessed licenses, and AGPL is not part of the ones I'm aware of.
I'm not sure if there are more such cases, but clearly with this one, AGPL was not enough.
I guess the issue is: if you have freeloaders, who are making all the money you would need to keep the OSS project alive, AGPL doesn't help you in any way. They are free to get the code as-is, run it, and serve their customers. Not sure why everybody suggests AGPL+Commercial as the perfect solution, it doesn't seem to solve anything for that case.
“Thanks for all the work, we’ll take that and put it behind a paywall and monetize it for you and not give you anything.”
People other than the author have a huge advantage when it comes to monetizing: they can focus only on that. The authors have to focus on creating while others can focus only on marketing.