| IANAL (ofcourse) but in my limited experience: 1a: Not allowed provided because of AGPL (though would be allowed if it is GPL) 1b: Allowed, provided it is purely internal (as described here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... ) 1c: Not allowed (this is a distribution, and actually is also in violation of general GPL) 1d: Not allowed, linking against the library means using it, which means GPL violation. 2: If (x) is licenses as MIT and does not contain AGPL underneath (it shouldn't, they are not compatible), you can take X under that MIT license. Regardless of actual repository layout. 3: Penalty is a pretty grey area, and this is a civil suite, not a criminal suite. As a result it goes into damages etc 4: I reckon EFF etc. Look for "GPL enforcement" (AGPL is not very different) 5: You can try.. but I reckon only in the discovery etc for a lawsuit a judge can force them to give access to the source-code to verify your claim. For all intents and purposes, AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with the addendum that distribution also covers "As a Service". Also.. at our company we completely banned AGPL because we simply don't want to deal with any potential violations. So I reckon 1b in your example would also not happen in a place like Facebook (I reckon all 4 companies have an AGPL ban in place :) ) |