> No, you are not conveying the software to people who merely interact with it over the network. From the text of AGPL itself: Yeah, you're right it's not call

> No, you are not conveying the software to people who merely interact with it over the network. From the text of AGPL itself: Yeah, you're right it's not called "conveying" in the AGPL. But the whole point of section 13 is that it's _like_ conveying. I'm not a lawyer and I doubt you are, so the distinction is without a difference IMO. > Being able to "use the software for any purpose" is not sufficient to satisfy freedom 0. As the FSF explains: > Note that you have to be able to use it for any purpose without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. If my purpose with the program from my example is to play chess from my computer with remote people, I am not able to do that under AGPL unless I communicate my modifications to them. I don't agree with that reading of what the FSF says. "developers or any specific entity" is referring to telemetry. If you have to give a copy of the code to all users of software you've exposed on the network, you are not sending it to "developers or any specific entity" -- it's just the users that you're communicating with over the network. The whole point is that you can choose to not share your code with anyone -- meaning that you can choose to not offer a network service to anyone.