Some additional history

> Kuhn and Poole had both assumed that the Affero clause was safely
> part of the GPLv3, but those working on the license development
> project left it out. By the time he realized what had happened, Kuhn
> said, the first drafts of GPLv3 appeared, and the Affero clause was
> gone.

To say the Affero clause was "gone" is correct but a bit
misleading. It was contemplated that some developers would wish to add
Affero-like conditions to their code, and originally an effort was
made to ensure that some such conditions would be GPLv3-compatible.

The first public draft of GPLv3 (January 2006) stated, in what was
then its 'License Compatibility' section, that the following category
of additional requirement would be compatible with GPLv3:

"[terms that] require that the work contain functioning facilities
that allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete
Corresponding Source Code."

The rationale document accompanying this draft of GPLv3 explained that
"This is intended to enable compatibility with licensing terms that,
for example, require modified versions of a program that interacts
with users through a network to preserve an opportunity for users to
request network transmission of the source code."

In response to some criticism, this clause was revised in GPLv3 Draft
2 (July 2006) to:

"terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover
is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network,
that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source
of the work through the same network session"

In GPLv3 Draft 3 (March 2007), this item was removed entirely from the
list of GPLv3-compatible additional requirements. Separately, the term
of art 'convey', which replaced GPLv2 'distribution', was clarified
thus:『Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with
no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.』Finally, Draft 3 signalled
in a separate section that there would be a new, single authorized
version of the AGPL with which GPLv3 would be cross-compatible. Some
further changes were made in subsequent drafts and the new AGPL, later
dubbed the GNU AGPLv3, itself was drafted as a GPLv3 variant. The
removal of a *category* of GPLv3-compatible Affero clauses, and its
replacement with a single FSF-authorized successor to the original
AGPL, was a compromise solution explained in the GPLv3 Third
Discussion Draft Rationale, section 4.2. http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf

I don't think it's misleading: Both Henry Poole and I were take aback when we learned that an Affero clause in GPLv3 wasn't a fait accompli. I remind you that I was so busy doing the wrong things that I didn't even read the first discussion draft all the way through until months after its release (when DD2 came out). That's my own fault for allowing myself to be distracted by (in-retrospect pointless) tasks that I was working on at the time, but I never imagined the assurances I'd received from GPLv3's drafters of an Affero clause would need double-checking. I trusted the process, and the process let me down.