You think that people understand open source as free (as free to re-use)? I don't believe so, there are many open source licences for these reasons, depending on the willingness of the authors. Linux is open source or not? ;)
Least restrictive
* MIT/2,3,4-clause BSD/Apache (pretty much anything, the terms are clear (except Apache))
* LGPL (usually for libraries that can link to non GPL stuff)
* GPLv2 (if you change the source and ship product, you must reveal the source. can't link with other licenses)
* GPLv3 (closed the Tivo loophole)
* Affero GPL (no services)
Without a license being specified, it's difficult/impossible to include a project in anything commercial.
The problem with oauth.io is I could spend time learning it to use it on a personal project and then not be able to apply the same knowldege on a client project where the client doesn't find the copyleft situation acceptable.
The concern with AGPL is philosophical dissonance of allowing positive rights of freedom while simultaneously enforcing negative rights, e.g., restrictions on use. I see limitations as failure and route through them (ZoL awesome CDDL hack with DKMS).
Zealous enmity accomplishes less than frenemies, and tips your hand besides.
But on the other hand, this license is no different than GPLv3 except being made for SaaS-type of projects.
However, if your not trying to hide modifications by ripping out features, then hey, this might be useful software someone is offering you for free.
[[ Tried getting it running, but ran into an issue. ]]