I think the argument of FOSS people who don't like it would be something like, as a user, just running the software on my machine can potentially create a legal obligation to set up source distribution, if, like, I forgot to block a port.
I think the argument of FOSS people who don't like it would be something like, as a user, just running the software on my machine can potentially create a legal obligation to set up source distribution, if, like, I forgot to block a port.
Not true: only if you made local modifications.
> I forgot to block a port
Also not true. You have plenty of time to close that port.
"""your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice."""
If you expose services on the Internet by mistake you are going to have 1000x bigger problems than the risk of being sued successfully for a honest mistake.
In any case, does the AGPL requirement to provide sources apply even if you are running an unmodified version? In other words, would merely pointing to the original repository not be enough?
Regarding the risk of accidental legal obligations, I suppose it depends on the details and technical wording of the licence.
If the requirement broadly covers any use of the software on the machine (e.g. some backend service that happens to help your public webserver to stay online) I can see the discomfort, especially if one must explicitly provide or link to unmodified sources too.
On the other hand though, if the requirement is limited to actual provision of the software's functionality to 3rd parties, I would argue that if someone accidentally provides it due to forgetting to block a port then they have much bigger problems than the AGPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
It just says interact remotely through a network. Interpreting what this means precisely is left as an exercise for the reader / the reader's lawyer.
forgot to block the right port
I'm not against AGPL myself so don't take that as like, the strongest argument against it. It was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek.if you get notified of a security breach caused by your own incopetence, you secure it. which would effectively be the highest harm apgl can inflict on you already: stop hosting the service. which was your point all along.
for a popular program that's not very likely, but lost source code is the bane of software development, so hacing your own version available would be better, at least as a backup
distributions keep archives. Just use a distribution and you're fine.
That said, FOSS authors normally aren't the kind of people that pushes to those crazy maximalist interpretations of documents. So if any risk exists, it's not large.