[darnir]

You're absolutely correct and if I'm not wrong this is a common loophole used by companies to get around the AGPL (when they really want to)

That is, contract the development to a third party. Let's say A wants proprietary modifications to an AGPL product (X). A contracts B, a solutions provider to make the changes. B is legally required to provide the changes to their X.1 product to anyone that uses it. However, only A is their direct user. Now since A did not modify X to X.1 they are not required to provide a direct download link in the application to the sources for X.1

I'm unsure if GPL style protections still apply and I as a user can request the sources from A by making an explicit request. (I guess not, since they never shared the application with me, only access to it via the network)

[em-bee]

i don't think that works. it should not matter who makes the modifications. you are running a modified version of X hence you must provide the source.

but the distribution requirement in the AGPL should trigger just as well as in the GPL. the only difference is that access through the network is added as a trigger.

so i don't actually believe that the AGPL distribution requirement only triggers on modifications. it should trigger on unmodified versions too, just like the GPL. whoever provides the program, is required to provide the source.

this certainly was the intent, and if the AGPL does not implement that intent then that would be a major flaw, which i can't believe they would allow to slip through when designing the license