AFPL has been mentioned in the report as created because exec-linking proprietary software to a GPL-licensed "plug-in"¹ was seen as a major loophole. AGPL is al

AFPL has been mentioned in the report as created because exec-linking proprietary software to a GPL-licensed "plug-in"¹ was seen as a major loophole. AGPL is also mentioned as potentially suitable for projects that ultimately chose a non-OSI license, with the report raising the question of why they chose not to use it. From my understanding, it seems like AGPL tries to close a different major loophole in the GPL by ensuring its viral requirements also trigger in cloud computing uses. Both AFPL and AGPL appear to try to prevent other companies from getting a competitive advantage by leeching from free software without contributing back, while the report suggests companies wanting to carve themselves a competitive advantage while still enjoying source code release benefits can opt to license under a DOSP regime with a rather long delay (hovering around 4 years based on the table included in the report), while remarking said delay's significance depends on how long older releases can stay relevant and that several pre-BSL DOSP experiments ended up decreasing said delay to effectively zero later on. While the report leaves that as an open question, What do you think is the extent of this perceived competitive advantage/disadvantage in the decisioning of which license to use? ----- [1]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins