I wouldn't say that they don't necessarily understand some of the original principles behind the open source movement or even maybe what the adjacent free software movement advocates for.
It's just that they realize the realities of living in our society, financial pressures and how they impact one's ability to contribute to projects long term.
Keeping things open for other FOSS projects and maybe non-commercial use cases while charging companies seems like a good compromise in regards to sustainability!
How would this idea be against the spirit of open source?
> As an Open Source developer, you build a new cool library or a tool and license it under AGPL. This preserves all the Free Software freedoms for all the non-commercial users out there.
This is the part that earns my support. I see some B2B software use dual licensing arrangements that offer a proprietary commercial license alongside a source-available license that is not a free software or open source software license. While having the source available is better than not having it (since it can be publicly audited), being able to use, modify, and redistribute the software for any purpose is an essential part of FOSS. But as long as the AGPL or another FOSS license is offered as an option, the software is still free and open source.
