First of all, this part of the article:
"customers and will lose the right to distribute subsequent versions of the software"
...contains a GPL interpretation mistake made by the author of the article, that Perens nor OSS Inc. has nothing to do with. I just wanted to correct him, and that's what AGPL reference with the rest of the text of that paragraph is for.
"But they are freely admitting that "we are selling you this GPL2 code, you have the right to redistribute it, but if you exercise that right then we'll do something to you (in this case, withhold future versions)". That IS putting a constraint on you exercising your rights under the GPL2."
IANAL, but here I disagree. OSS Inc. has the right to stop doing business with anyone, for any reason. That right isn't covered by nor does arise from the GPL and thus exists independently, being guaranteed by law. And I don't see how stating the fact that this right may be exercised, both conditionally or not, - and doing it in advance or not - is putting a constraint. In other words, "mind that you may exercise your right, but I may exercise my right". Court might disagree, but nonetheless, that's my opinion.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
