It's not just big tech that hates AGPL. If Terraform was under AGPL a lot of companies might have to release their source code as AGPL too because of its virality. Where it stops is not exactly clear from the license.
AGPL is almost exactly the same as GPL except that SAAS counts as distribution. That's the entire purpose of the license — to preserve the copyleft protections of the GPL in a world where most software people use is hosted.
Except it’s not just hosting the covered work itself as SAAS that triggers a distribution, but any derived work. If you use (say) AGPL MongoDB in your SAAS bug tracker, your bug tracker now needs to be AGPL too. The virality doesn’t stop at hosting a SAAS MongoDB.
That's probably not correct. While the AGPL is a little ambiguous, it probably does not infect other apps. That's why I created the Candid Public License (CPL): https://github.com/candiddev/cpl
Every lawyer I’ve talked to takes my interpretation. It may be overly cautious of them, but in practice, if something becomes the prevailing legal view, it de facto is the correct interpretation, at least until it is tested in court.
Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work. (This is why the LGPL exists, to allow for what the regular GPL restricts.)
The logic of the lawyers I’ve talked to (2 different companies on multiple occasions with different lawyers) is that the same wording that causes network access to count as “distribution” in the AGPL, also causes networked API access to count as a derived work.
It’s not all that crazy of an interpretation, IMO. My lawyers may suck and be overly cautious, but I’d wager this uncertainty is exactly why any sane company stays as far away as possible.
AGPL does not add any distribution clause... all distribution clauses are taken from the GPL...
The AGPL adds a modification clause so that if you ever modify the code even if you do not distribute the application, you still have to share the code or at least link to the version of the source code that you use. The loophole that AGPL fixes is that there are ways to avoid distribution.
This AGPL/GPL virality urban legend should have ended years ago.
There is no such thing as "virality". It doesn't exist. The worst thing you can do is violate the license terms and not be allowed to use the software that is AGPL licensed.
And yet everyone understands what this term means when applied to software licensing. Pretty good argument that this word, in fact, exists and has a well defined meaning.
Not really. The lawyer Kyle Mitchell said of the agpl,“Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke.” Even lawyers have trouble understanding when its provisions are triggered.
The AGPL defines "Corresponding Source" as "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities".
Then in section 13 it says that "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge".
Isn't "scripts to control those activities quite vague? Under those terms wouldn't AWS Proton, IBM Schematics, Env0, Digger, Spacelift, etc. be required to open-source a very large part of their product as well?
I think, if Terraform was licensed under AGPL, then not only would all of those folks would have to also open-source their products, but also that would be the intent of the license in the first place