> It's almost like the FSF intended to trick the authors who choose AGPL into not realizing what terms they were licensing their work under.
It's the very opposite: it's to create clarity for all parties involved.
Alice publishes something under AGPL, Bob forks it and sneaks in an additional clause and Charlie gets a copy from Bob.
Now, is Charlie getting all the freedoms of the original AGPL or is he bound by the additional clause? The latter would allow Bob to trick Charlie into running closed source software masquerading as FOSS.
AGPL tries to prevent such sneaky behavior.
> A user might have wrongly thought that AGPL meant they could resell it
That's what the court said which I agree with. But what the OSI is saying was the intent of the FSF and what the court case was about is very different.
The OSI, FSF and what the court case was trying to argue was that if Alice publishes something under AGPL with an additional clause. Charlie gets a copy from Alice, and decides to remove all additional clauses and to ignore them, then it is okay because the AGPL says that all additional clauses can be removed.
The judge said that this doesn't apply to the original licensor, that the original licensor can choose the terms of their own copyright, so if they want AGPL + additional clause then those additional clauses can't be ignored or removed. Only additional clause added by licensees can be removed due to the original terms they agreed too when using an AGPL library.
It's the very opposite: it's to create clarity for all parties involved.
Alice publishes something under AGPL, Bob forks it and sneaks in an additional clause and Charlie gets a copy from Bob.
Now, is Charlie getting all the freedoms of the original AGPL or is he bound by the additional clause? The latter would allow Bob to trick Charlie into running closed source software masquerading as FOSS.
AGPL tries to prevent such sneaky behavior.
> A user might have wrongly thought that AGPL meant they could resell it
They 100% can.