I've come to the realization that Microsoft's strategy of Embrace Extend Extinguish is literally a 1-for-1 textbook implementation of the process of recuperation, specifically it's a recuperation of the radical FOSS counterculture. I'm suspecting that some Microsoft executive read Marxist theory as a guide on how to do a better capitalism.
Isn't the whole purpose of GPLv3/AGPL to make sure the software is free in perpetuity?
Like if Microsoft wanted to use some open source library licensed under MIT or something, then all they'd need to do is provide a link to the original source and they could keep all their changes private. With GPLv3 though, they'd have to publish all their modifications to the code as well.
Yes, it is. But the AGPL goes one step further in making networked resources available as source code as well. With GPLv3 there is still the option that you could put the GPLv3 software on a network-accessible host (a server). You're not distributing the software, and therefore GPLv3 can remain exploited by companies/whoever without having to share the changes to the source code.
AGPL says if you host it as a web service, you have to offer the source code to the users. This is considered so toxic by businesses that you'll see pages like this https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy
What you described is beyond the requirements of the MIT license. They simply must include the copyright provision as attribution. That's it.
Wow what an absolute useless license