Redis is no longer free software

1) It requires $BIGCORP release the code for their entire operation as AGPL software, so they won't use AGPL software.

2) It doesn't apply require the release of anything behind a paper thin veneer of SaaS interface, so it's not meaningfully different from the "normal" GPL.

3) (This is the biggie, OMHO) It's really not clear whether #1 or#2 (or something in between) is really the case. The wording in the AGPL terms leaves plenty of scope for reasonable disagreement about what it even means. Even identifying the relevant jurisdiction is non-trivial, let alone finding out what ruling might come out of any court action. A quick Google doesn't reveal any suggestion of test cases to learn from...

3½) Is the AGPL's requirement of AGPL-licensed release of code absent distribution (in the copyright law sense - the AGPL uses the term "convey"), even enforceable at all? Again, I don't think this has been tested, but I imagine it would have tough time in the courts, to say the least(!)

Even if none of the above punctures the AGPL, any sufficiently mean spirited $BIGCORP could arrange for their modifications to be be made by a suitable distinct $PUPPETCORP, licenced under the AGPL but only made available to $BIGCORP, who would then not fall into the category of using a "modified" (by them) version, and would have no requirement to release any code at all (section 13 of the AGPL only applies to *modified* versions as I read it)

Honestly, I think the *idea* of the AGPL is not only perfectly valid, but laudable - a software author ought to be able (if they so desire) to provide code under terms that keep it big-F "Free" to end-users as well as recipients,, but I'm not sure there's any way to achieve this under current copyright or contact law. What I am pretty confident of, though, is that the AGPL is not such a way...