I told him about corporations using AGPLv3 as leverage in order to build SaaS products around the software. As copyright holders, they can do whatever they want while everyone else must comply with license terms. The CLA is a necessary component of that strategy.

I asked him what he thought of the practice. That's what he replied. He didn't go into much detail about SaaS. He said it was too broad a term to judge.

Here's the full email exchange:

  Hello, Dr. Stallman. I would like to know your views
  on the ethics of certain uses of the AGPLv3.

  There are apparently some corporations that
  are releasing free software under the AGPLv3
  while building software-as-a-service platforms
  using the same software. It is my understanding
  that as the copyright holders they have the right
  to do it without any problems. They leverage the
  AGPLv3 to make it harder for their competitors
  to use the code to compete against them.

  In online discussions on this matter, I pointed
  to an article that you wrote regarding the ethics
  of selling exceptions to the GPL. You argued
  that that if selling this exception was unethical
  then so was releasing software under permissive
  licenses, and rejected the idea that it was unethical.
  The conclusion was that this enabled proprietary
  software to be freed, an ideal outcome.

  I'd like to ask if you think the same logic applies
  to the SaaS situation I mentioned. I think it does,
  but others did not agree.

  People are using the AGPLv3 to maximize leverage.
  Corporations seem to be incapable of tolerating the
  license's terms, a situation that leads to copyright
  holders providing a business solution: paying for it.
  They can buy special permission to use the software.
  These days, it appears the choice being offered is to
  buy into the company's SaaS platform instead of
  purchasing a special permission or license.

  The exact mechanism employed by the business
  seems like a minor detail to me but perhaps there
  are some ethical considerations that I'm not seeing.
  So I decided to send you this email and ask what
  your opinion on the matter is.

  Thank you for your time,
      Matheus

  ---

  > There are apparently some corporations [...]

  "Software as a service" covers such a broad range of computing
  practices that I generally don't use it.  It is too broad, and gives
  too little information, to judge whether a practice is good or bad.

  > It is my understanding [...]

  I see what you mean.  The original developer can engage
  in a practice that blocks coopertation.

  By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL,
  would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice.
  In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it
  is also more harmful.

  On balance, using the AGPL is better.