@noisytoot @alexia
The minio thing is shitty, but also not at all the same as what the OQL is suggesting. Also, the AGPL seems like it forbids selling license exceptions. See section 12:

"If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program."

(from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)

The above section seems wholly incompatible with what I'm suggesting. The point isn't scaring off companies, I want my software to be used, but only to better the world. The point is that under the current state of capitalism, incorporating OSS into your supply chain should require compensating developers commensurate to the responsibility you're placing on them.

If you're seriously suggesting that you're not missing the point immediately after no-true-scotsmaning open source development, I suspect there's little productive discussion we can have. Despite the fact that we have pretty similar goals (UBI, propagation of free software), I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't understand the concept of coalition building, which you will need to go into politics. Please go volunteer at a soup kitchen before proselytizing further about a license that won't put food on my table or those of my struggling queer friends who work in tech.