I never withdrew L0-R and OSI never rejected it. But that implies a formality to the process that was never there. I still disagree strongly that L0-R fell out

I never withdrew L0-R and OSI never rejected it. But that implies a formality to the process that was never there. I still disagree strongly that L0-R fell outside OSI's definition. Do you have a reading of that definition that doesn't exclude existing OSI-approved licenses? A few folks tried to build some, purpose-built to exclude L0-R, but they didn't stand up. People opposed the license for entirely separate reasons, and only tried to talk in definition terms after weeks of trying to steer discussions there. Your description of AGPL is pretty good, but it better suits OSL than AGPL. AGPL's approach to network copyleft stands largely apart from its approach to distribution-triggered copyleft. Only the definitions of "modify" and "Corresponding Source" get reused in meaningful ways.