[spopejoy]

> The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code ... _may be_ subject to the virality of the AGPL license.

This is aggressive scare tactics. It's very straightforward when this is triggered.

When you're using code unmodified as a library (whether source or binary) it's not triggered at all.

When you _do_ make upstream modifications, it's triggered. That is the specific risk, and it is easily satisfied by open-sourcing the full modified version.

The whole "if a remote user uses it" argument is FUD. It closes a loophole in GPL where remote use != distribution.

Google is hostile to copyleft full stop. So are other bigcos and cargo-culting smallcos/startups. That doesn't make it right.