Seems fairly straightforward to me. The more viral nature of AGPL is limiting their options for stewardship.
One way of getting around that is to be the owner of the original IP, whereby you could relicense it under something that wouldn't limit stewardship options. It seems that's not a possibility, because:
"One of the creditors owns the IP and IMO they're unlikely to sell it unless the project raises fairly substantial sums of money"
So, basically, they will have to sort out stewardship with fewer options than what would be optimal.
There seems to be a "far left" and "far right" view on the thread. The "far left" is that the issues above somehow don't matter at all. The "far right" view is that they are showstoppers for any kind of stewardship solution.
One way of getting around that is to be the owner of the original IP, whereby you could relicense it under something that wouldn't limit stewardship options. It seems that's not a possibility, because:
"One of the creditors owns the IP and IMO they're unlikely to sell it unless the project raises fairly substantial sums of money"
So, basically, they will have to sort out stewardship with fewer options than what would be optimal.
There seems to be a "far left" and "far right" view on the thread. The "far left" is that the issues above somehow don't matter at all. The "far right" view is that they are showstoppers for any kind of stewardship solution.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.