As others have said, you’re changing the topic talking about FUTO’s license in a response to a comment about the AGPL.

But to continue your thread:

If you ask them to articulate their concern, I haven’t heard one that isn’t on the lines of “I want to be able to use this code in my paid product”…

I specifically want anyone to be allowed to use any and all FOSS software I write (and I do write and publish some) commercially, so long as they abide by the terms of the license I choose. (Typically the AGPLv3.)

If, for instance, a mainstream commercial consumer electronics device incorporated my code into the firmware and because my code is under the AGPLv3, end users had the legal right to demand the means to modify the behavior of their devices to better suit them, I’d be thrilled.

Plus, if they’re distributing a modified version of my code, that might well include some improvements generally useful for all/most/many users of my project. And if it’s under the AGPLv3, I can demand a copy of the code and incorporate those improvements back upstream into my project so all users of my FOSS project can benefit from it.

Commercial redistribution is more of a feature than you think. I think you’re missing the point of copyleft.