[Qwuke]

>You’re free to distribute it for a fee for almost any purpose save one.

So it does not meet the original free software's required freedoms, and is therefore not free software?

>“Source available” again calling this source available is disingenuous. You’re deliberating using the least free term that is technically accurate.

No, the source is available to read and the software is not free based on the historical definitions you're providing, unfortunately. Happy to understand from a different lens, but Stallman specifically meant freedom in the way even FSL writers agreed with.

Also, please refrain to using commonly used terms in the common way as 'disingenuous', it doesn't lead to interesting discussion and is how these threads end up needing to be patrolled by dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>With respect to AGPL providing “too much control”. That is a valid and likely reason for courts to find it unenforceable.

So, this is a personal non-legal theory that does not have a basis in jurisprudence, then? GPLv3 is proven as enforceable, and is what AGPL is based on. No court in any legal system would throw away a license based on giving "too much control". That's just not how copyright or licensing contracts work. You may want to disclaim conjectures like this with IANAL..

[sarchertech]

My entire point is that “Source available” is a term frequently used in a derogatory way to make software that doesn’t follow the principles and hey espouse sound dirty.

My entire point is how big tech has captured the zeitgeist, so the common use of that term is irrelevant.

>No court in any legal system would throw away a license based on giving "too much control".

You are 100% incorrect. Contracts are frequently found unenforceable for this exact reason.

>So it does not meet the original free software's required freedoms, and is therefore not free software?

The original definition says nothing about a fee or what restrictions may be in place.

[Qwuke]

>My entire point is that “Source available” is a term frequently used in a derogatory way to make software that doesn’t follow the principles and hey espouse sound dirty.

It's not dirty, it just doesn't follow the principles the rest of us espouse. We're interested in software that follows these principles via a license like this.

That you're ascribing malice to the entire FOSS community seems a bit strange, when they're the ones who created the free software definition in the first place. The source is available but is not free software even in the original definition.

>Contracts are frequently found unenforceable for this exact reason.

So, personal theory, wrt AGPL. Given you've recently been made aware of the stack of case law for AGPL and that it is largely _just_ GPLv3, I wonder why you think this is a possibility given it is your uninformed non-expert opinion.

>The original definition says nothing about a fee or what restrictions may be in place.

Completely out of context, because even the original definition defines it as "free speech" as in that there are no restrictions on the ways you can freely using it anyway you want, including distributing it.

You're right that a business might offer a fee for free software under this definition, but that's unrelated to it being free to distribute under any clauses.

Given that Stallman is alive and we don't have to do dubious Stallman legal textualism to justify source available licenses, when even source available license writers and users are fine with that distinction, seems a bit strange.

[gr4vityWall]

> My entire point is that “Source available” is a term frequently used in a derogatory way to make software that doesn’t follow the principles

I agree it doesn't need to be called "source available"; it's just proprietary software.