> In truth, the terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with. The basic obligations of the AGPL which set it apart from other licenses are as follows:
> - Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL.
> - Any users of such software are entitled to the source code under the terms of the AGPL, including users accessing it over the network such as with their web browser or via an API or internet protocol.
That first claim is debatable at best. Nowhere in the entire document will you find the term "derivative work." Instead, the AGPL forces on the reader a bunch of other terms that may or may not add up to "derivative works."
Other licenses have no problem coming out and using the term. Doing so connects those licenses to a well-understood body of intellectual property law. Not so with AGPL. See the discussion in the book by Rosen (an actual lawyer) for more [1].
So right out of the gate, the AGPL is not easy to comply with.
> In truth, the terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with. The basic obligations of the AGPL which set it apart from other licenses are as follows:
> - Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL.
> - Any users of such software are entitled to the source code under the terms of the AGPL, including users accessing it over the network such as with their web browser or via an API or internet protocol.
That first claim is debatable at best. Nowhere in the entire document will you find the term "derivative work." Instead, the AGPL forces on the reader a bunch of other terms that may or may not add up to "derivative works."
Other licenses have no problem coming out and using the term. Doing so connects those licenses to a well-understood body of intellectual property law. Not so with AGPL. See the discussion in the book by Rosen (an actual lawyer) for more [1].
So right out of the gate, the AGPL is not easy to comply with.
[1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm