> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.”
So I can't run a service for it on VPS at a hosting provider, because I can not share the source to the backup system, hypervisor and load-balancer they use? Are firmware-blobs in my kernel-drivers ok? That seems extremely open and far-reaching, to the point that one could argue that it clearly is intended to forbid offerings as a service, even if it pretends not to.
EDIT: after looking up details about the "comical debate" (quote article), that indeed appears to have been one of the arguments. Not surprising the article badmouths the OSI, but doesn't actually engage with or even dare mention their arguments.
Upon rereading the bit you quoted, I agree that could be an issue. I had initially misinterpreted "all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available" to mean it was limited to any essential supporting bits you had implemented that might have otherwise been made proprietary (much to the detriment of a user trying to actually use the source code you provided). It does seem to be overreaching, but I also maintain that the AGPL has a major loophole as things currently stand.
Edit: From the sibling comment, it seems that SSPLv2 tries to address this.
So I can't run a service for it on VPS at a hosting provider, because I can not share the source to the backup system, hypervisor and load-balancer they use? Are firmware-blobs in my kernel-drivers ok? That seems extremely open and far-reaching, to the point that one could argue that it clearly is intended to forbid offerings as a service, even if it pretends not to.
EDIT: after looking up details about the "comical debate" (quote article), that indeed appears to have been one of the arguments. Not surprising the article badmouths the OSI, but doesn't actually engage with or even dare mention their arguments.