I think the point is that, if you don't send the GPL + IPC layer to user, then it is not counted as distribution. Certainly there is a distinction between distr

I think the point is that, if you don't send the GPL + IPC layer to user, then it is not counted as distribution. Certainly there is a distinction between distributing the full software and allowing network access to it, otherwise there would be no need for AGPL, as GPL would cover that too. The question is whether that requirement is actually something that's protected by law. I lean more towards it being protected. Otherwise, running a pirated version of some software and exposing it on the web wouldn't be considered ilegal either, and I'm pretty sure it is.