@lxo @strypey >when the job the program does is the operator's computing, rather than a remote client's computing, the user is the operator, and the AGPL would fail to respect the user's freedom
The AGPLv3 is written not to have that flaw - when the user is the operator, no source code has to be provided to anyone, as the only user already has it after all;
>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.

SaaSS hosts are not even required to supply any source code to the users provided they don't modify the software (even then, the user should be able to find it just fine via the software name inserted into the footer etc).

The AGPLv3 is specifically designed to apply to the case where a SaaSS host takes the software and adds malware and spyware to it, as then that SaaSS host is then legally required to provide evidence of their criminal activities to the users and also allow them to remove it and release a fixed version.

google and other malicious parties hate the AGPLv3 for that reason alone - but doesn't that just make you want to license under AGPLv3-or-later harder?


If the GPLv4 ever needs to be written, the remote network interaction requirement should be included, although it should also be more explicitly stated that it does not apply to purely personal usage of the software.