> and respond could've easily been used to comply with the license I agree it's a weird reaction to take the site down when pushed, and try to get away with it

> and respond could've easily been used to comply with the license I agree it's a weird reaction to take the site down when pushed, and try to get away with it to begin with, but I also think that them removing the site entirely was a very likely outcome from the beginning, and probably the best move for that company. If they missed the AGPL requirement from day 1 (likely) and they're developing at the typical level of a small business who misses things like licencing requirements, then their source code is likely not something they can release. It's likely to have hard-coded credentials, and it's even possible that the licence for their translations don't allow them to distribute them elsewhere! They might have conflicting licences. As unsatisfying as it is, taking the site down is a reasonable step – it mostly addresses the complainant's request by ceasing to violate the AGPL.