You're probably right (and also, I find your comment further below regarding interpretation of AGPL insightful, insofar as it touches on a point in AGPL that wo

You're probably right (and also, I find your comment further below regarding interpretation of AGPL insightful, insofar as it touches on a point in AGPL that would impose limits onto unrelated code, and that some people consider unenforceable). Just wanted to mention that I believe AGPL is sometimes considered with a dual-license scheme in the hope that enterprises buy the commercial license, or to avoid a situation where a commercial third party benefits from a piece of software disproportionally, or to the detriment of the project's funding (such as providing pure hosting), whether contributions are upstreamed or not. Not being able to express clearly what you're after - cash or code - makes AGPL suboptimal. It's a reality that software without funding and maintenance only goes into bitrot mode, so why not come out straight and sell potential customers maintenance and support? Clearly, the software licensing universe needs additional considerations today compared to the time when Affero/AGPL was conceived.