The AGPL is not viral in the sense that all client software accessing an AGPL-licensed service are required to use the AGPL, but rather, such clients are entitled to the source of that service. It puts no obligations whatsoever on client software.
> The AGPL is not viral in the sense that all client software accessing an AGPL-licensed service are required to use the AGPL, but rather, such clients are entitled to the source of that service. It puts no obligations whatsoever on client software.
This depends on what your "client" is. If you're making library calls, lawyers get uncomfortable.
> Maybe you should actually read up on the AGPL license before you make assumptions about it? It seems like you don't really understand it.
I understand it quite well, and I even use it myself! There are just problems associated with it that most proponents gloss over.
>This depends on what your "client" is. If you're making library calls, lawyers get uncomfortable.
Ah, in this case, this software is designed to maximize conversions to the paid commercial license, so they deliberately use the AGPL in a way which makes it inconvenient for your internal use. This is not common in software which does not have an alternative commercial license. I don't really appreciate this model because it is disrespectful of the copyright of third-party contributions.
I agree with you, and this is where my concern lies: it's Open Source software, but I think that terminology is misleading (in the case of this software), where as, I find some of the close-but-no-cigar licenses much more "Open". So, while I see tremendous value in OSI's definition, I find it is somewhat of an impedance mismatch with what the average fool expects.
I actually do. If I write a library, I definitely don't want people to put a web UI on top of it and get away without any obligations, like so many people do for e.g. website that are just ffmpeg frontends.
No one uses AGPL for libraries, except maybe by mistake. LGPL is used for this purpose.
>Do I need to now publish my SQL queries that access sensitively named tables?
No. The FAQ from GNU makes how this works pretty clear:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingR...
The AGPL is not viral in the sense that all client software accessing an AGPL-licensed service are required to use the AGPL, but rather, such clients are entitled to the source of that service. It puts no obligations whatsoever on client software.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingR...
Maybe you should actually read up on the AGPL license before you make assumptions about it? It seems like you don't really understand it.