[Bogdanp]

It's a little more nuanced[0] than that and I confess I don't fully understand it myself. IANAL, but my understanding is it depends on how it's used. If a user action on your website ends up triggering Dramatiq code then you have to open source that code in addition to providing access to Dramatiq. If all you do is batch processing on your own servers, then you don't have to do anything; you're merely a user of the software.

[0]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/5004

[btown]

Is asynchronous interaction still "interaction" for the purposes of the AGPL? If End User A's manual changes are placed into a database or file which is read by Dramatiq code in a subsequent cron-triggered batch process, is that considered interaction? These questions are not at all cut and dry, but companies like MongoDB who use the AGPL could conceivably argue that this would be considered an interaction. [I am not a lawyer.]

As a separate point, it's odd that anyone would use a license that they "don't fully understand," when (presumably) they would hold themselves to a higher standard of understanding the behavior of libraries they uses in their software itself. Is it irrational to consider this, at the very least, an indication of lack of attention to detail, and a tremendous red flag?

[Bogdanp]

I am not a copyright lawyer so when I say I don't fully understand the implications of a particular license that's all I mean. I would say exactly the same of thing of other licenses I've used such as the 3-Clause BSD License, the Apache License and the MIT License. I understand what they're for and broadly how they may be applied, but I don't understand all the intricacies and interactions they have with copyright law because it's not something I have deeply studied. Hope that makes sense!