> I don't know if this is a sound legal interpretation of the AGPL though.
Exactly. AGPL was explicitly created to make all clients of the software be bound by its license. To say that the drivers have a different license makes no sense at all.
Exactly. AGPL was explicitly created to make all clients of the software be bound by its license. To say that the drivers have a different license makes no sense at all.
huh? AGPL puts no requirements on clients of the software. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to use IE to connect to AGPL webapps. AGPL puts extra requirements on people using the software on servers.
Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but I would want a lawyer to tell me that before using any AGPL code.
My understanding is that it somewhat extends the concept of "distributing" to providing remote access over a network:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License."