> No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. This is not true. > A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate r

> No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. This is not true. > A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate rather than mitigate risk and who try to grab every scrap of IP for the company. This is the kind of company you're talking about. I'm guessing you would claim all of the giants as obviously falling into this category (they all have bad lawyers). They are all also the only ones worth suing. Note that it's not just FAAMNG, Square made this determination too: https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-services-community-raise-concerns-about-restriction-to-use-the-agpl-licensed-software-in-online-stores/ https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-service... I'd love to hear what Stripe thinks about using AGPL-licensed software. Basically I've yet to hear of a large (> $1B revenue +) SaaS company that doesn't have concerns about using AGPL software as a core part of its service offering. I'd love to hear some counterexamples...