Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article is obfuscating why the license was going to be rejected by the OSI. The OSI has as part of their definition of open-source that there can be no field of use discriminators. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was drafted by a commercial company. OSI has approved plenty of licenses drafted by for-profit companies (e.g. Intel, IBM, Microsoft.) https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-sour…
How come AGPL doesn't run afoul of #10 of the OSD definition, which is: > 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral > No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. Under AGPLv3 if I have AGPLv3 code on a computer and users can interact with it the requirements depend on the technology used by the users to interact with the program. It had a provision that only applies…
The AGPLv3 is not predicated on a particular technology or interface so it doesn't run afoul of this. You can use it in networked software, or un-networked software. If a license said something like "you cannot use this for software that users interact with over a network" then it would violate this principle.