[Topfi]

But they had no access control in the first place. If I built their repo without modifications, I automatically have access. I would need to make modifications not to get that access.

> [...] they can still refuse you access to their network.

Sure, they can and yes, AGPL doesn't give users right to just access services, I have said before that they may enforce their EULA upon individual users. They are however not doing that, they are harassing repo owners. Let me put it this way: If the network access were the issue, as you seem to think, why go after the dev hosting your code rather than the individual users that you claim improperly access your services.

> What they cannot do is prevent you from running your modifications on your hardware.

They also cannot prevent a developer from rehosting AGPL code, but they are trying to do that. And it's kind of the actual issue.

That's why I was asking specifically regarding what level of code modifications is acceptable for them. Because they made this an issue not about using their servers but hosting code, regardless of how it's used.

[joshuaissac]

> They also cannot prevent a developer from rehosting AGPL code, but they are trying to do that. And it's kind of the actual issue.

I agree. I think the argument they are going for is similar to that from Google against yt-dl, but unlike in that case, Bambu is obligated to allow this codebase.