[sstangl]

Google's interpretation implies their belief that if their PostgreSQL server uses AGPL code, then every service using that PostgreSQL server must also be AGPL.

The article points out that that is not the case.

If you are using AGPL code as a library, however, then your application as a whole must be under an AGPL-compatible license. It's just that connecting to a server does not constitute linking in the GPL, and the AGPL doesn't change that.

[zchrykng]

The article points out that Drew believes it isn't the case. Until this stuff is tested in court, there isn't a lawyer worth the name who would guarantee that. The language isn't precise enough to be 100% sure how courts will interpret it, and the downside risk is monumentally huge for a company like Google if the ruling goes against them.

[woofie11]

> downside risk is monumentally huge for a company like Google if the ruling goes against them

The downside risk is damages. Those usually aren't monumentally huge. There's a calculation, but they're based on how much damage was done:

1) How much did Google profit from the code?

2) How much did the other party lose?

3) Are statutory damages greater?

Pick the highest of the three. If it's intentional -- and in this case it isn't -- you triple it. You might toss in legal fees.

#1 is the relative cost to going with an alternative solution (build in-house, license, etc.). #2 is usually zero for AGPL code. #3 is pocket change for Google. So you're likely to go with the cost of not having gone with AGPL in the first place, twice (once in damages, and once for the migration).

[jobigoud]

Plus the cost of rewriting the project with a different dependency.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what Google said. Their reference to "accessed over a remote network" is about triggering the virality provisions in the first place, since the AGPL doesn't require you to distribute anything if you're just running a program by yourself without sharing it.