But now your argument has nothing to do with the AGPL at all and everything to do with not doing business with disagreeable people.
And many free software projects require copyright assignment (e.g. the FSF requires this), so in all of those cases you're not dealing with 10,000 different parties, only the one. If that party is litigious then it doesn't really matter which license they use, they'll still be able to find an excuse to cause you grief.
> But now your argument has nothing to do with the AGPL at all and everything to do with not doing business with disagreeable people.
The ability for anyone to contribute is an inherent and intended feature of the AGPL, and it's something unique when compared to a traditional EULA for commercial software. The potential risks to this model might not be intentional, but they are nonetheless a result of the design.
>And many free software projects require copyright assignment (e.g. the FSF requires this), so in all of those cases you're not dealing with 10,000 different parties, only the one
To your point about arguments having nothing to do with the AGPL -- this is not part of the AGPL, and many AGPL projects do not have a copyright assignment agreement.
The bottom line of my point is -- risk is amplified by uncertainty.
[A little bit of uncertainty] * [a bunch of organizations who DGAF about us at all] = [possibly a significant concern]
[A little bit of uncertainty] * [one organization with a profitable, existing, and predictable relationship] = [disagreements are probably being settled by an invoice not a lawsuit]
And many free software projects require copyright assignment (e.g. the FSF requires this), so in all of those cases you're not dealing with 10,000 different parties, only the one. If that party is litigious then it doesn't really matter which license they use, they'll still be able to find an excuse to cause you grief.