It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I’ve only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)
I’m not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their
[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]
It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I’ve only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)
I noticed them talking about one of their softwares being licensed under FSL, not having heard of it, I looked it up and…
I’m not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their
[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]loop.