No, it's a true FOSS license and not one of the scammy ones in the news of late, but some organizations straight up ban AGPL[1] because it is network viral in a way that hasn't been tested in the courts, so best to just avoid the hassle
I didn't mean my comment in a disparaging way, just trying to answer a FAQ on any such "Show HN" that uses the term "open source" but doesn't otherwise specify. Often that means it's a scam license, and I find that to be doubly true when the submitter craftily omits any mention of the license, but it is not the case here and I applaud the use of an actual FOSS license, even if that means I personally don't get to enjoy using this software
No, AGPL essentially just prevents someone from SaaS-ing your GPL project as a way around the license. It makes it so that if you can reach the code over the network, it's source has to be available to you.
I didn't mean my comment in a disparaging way, just trying to answer a FAQ on any such "Show HN" that uses the term "open source" but doesn't otherwise specify. Often that means it's a scam license, and I find that to be doubly true when the submitter craftily omits any mention of the license, but it is not the case here and I applaud the use of an actual FOSS license, even if that means I personally don't get to enjoy using this software
1: e.g. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl... (discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31176071 and likely a ton of others, too)