[eudoxus]

> although they are treated as radioactive by most companies

Isn't this reason enough to not consider it an option?

[hnfong]

AFAIK, the main issue of the GPL family of licenses is that they are rather poorly drafted. The GNU project has great evangelists but ideological-minded people make bad lawyers. Their licenses are long winded and hard to interpret, and often make assumptions about unsettled bits of copyright law. Their legal theories (eg. "GPL is not a contract") have been rejected by courts.

In short, if you're a company wanting to use some AGPL-like license, you'd probably want to use a license that's better drafted over the original AGPL.

[gavindean90]

Can you link some info on the portion about contracts having been rejected by the courts? I’m having trouble finding specifics on that myself.

[pabs3]

The SFC think the GPL is a contract (as well as a license), and that is being tested in court at the moment:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

[madeofpalk]

Being radioactive is the reason why it is considered an option.