This is diluting the Foss moment more than others. GPL and AGPL are more than sufficient in my opinion.

To my knowledge, there has been some discussion regarding the AGPL as to whether using software through a network even creates the kind of legal relationship between provider and client such that the client has standing to request the source code. I assume similar discussions would crop up regarding the SOWPL.

Well it wouldn't be free software, because the requirement to publish source code publicly is at odds with the free software definition; the freedom to do something is not an obligation to do it. Copyleft simply means that if you choose to distribute the software, that you must do so under the terms you received it.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom

But, suppose the free software definition was written with this requirement in mind - as other commenters said it would be untenable, and potentially hazardous if you are using the software in a hostile environment.

"Hey dude are you running a SOWsense router in your homelab?"

"No I just wrote something from scratch"

"ah ok"

No, because it has a "termination clause", where if Watcom is suing you you can't use the software anymore while you are

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase_Open_Watcom_Public_License

See the first bit, and the linked discussion by Debian developers.

My question is, what would happen if free and/or open source software had the SOWPL?

For existing projects, that would only be possible if all contributors would agree to re-license their code. And unless there are compelling advantages for every one to do that, this is not going to happen.