[swiftcoder]

The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)

[orthoxerox]

Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.

[swiftcoder]

> AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users

The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code.

That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. And being subject to the AGPL, you are obligated to provide access to the source code for your entire server binary to anyone who connects to and interacts with your service across a network.

Quoting from https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t... :

> Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program...

> These terms cover the distribution of verbatim or modified source code as well as compiled executable binaries. However, they only apply when a program is distributed, or more specifically, conveyed to a recipient...

> The AGPLv3 does not adjust or expand the definition of conveying. Instead, it includes an additional right that if the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, the user is entitled to receive the source code of the version being used.

[orthoxerox]

Yes, but are there any AGPL-licensed libraries? I've only seen runnable binaries licensed under AGPL. I can theoretically imagine one, "if you want to build a server application using my binary, I don't want you hiding my source code from your users", but even GPL-licensed libraries are rare, LGPL is more common.

[swiftcoder]

Not a whole lot, at any rate. The poster child was probably BerkleyDB, but the current version is vended from a fork which still uses the pre-AGPL license terms

[worik]

> Not a whole lot, at any rate. The poster child was probably BerkleyDB, but the current version is vended from a fork which still uses the pre-AGPL license terms

It is "dual licensed". AGPL and proprietary license according to Wikipedia

I am unsure how that works...

Oracle

[aftbit]

Ah but what if you bundle both your application binary and some (unmodified) AGPL software into a single Docker container? Do you then need to provide source code for your entire application?

[swiftcoder]

That's the kind of question that only really gets answered when a judge rules on it. The pertinent question here is roughly whether the combined docker image constitutes a "derived work" of the AGPL software

[camgunz]

This was probably true of v2, but v3 doesn't refer to derived works. In OP's scenario they didn't modify the AGPL code, so there's nothing to release.

[swiftcoder]

The FSF has substituted the phrase “modified works” in place of “derivative works” in v3 of the license, yes, but not to narrow the definition - the intent was to broaden the definition to cover additional classes of modification.

From the FSF’s licensing FAQ:

> Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).