So, then, since Square’s application is a work, if an AGPL service interacts with it to modify Square’s work, your assertion is that this does not count as a mo

So, then, since Square’s application is a work, if an AGPL service interacts with it to modify Square’s work, your assertion is that this does not count as a modification introducing AGPL responsibilities. That’s useful to consider, but it doesn’t reassure me enough to remove the risk altogether. I would, if I were a coder in Square’s position, acknowledge this explanation and then very likely still move to deny AGPL interactions as a whole rather than try to finesse the exact legality as described. I care a lot about licensing but I also want to get work done without fear of AGPL lawsuits.