AGPL doesn't prohibit commercial use, either. The only restriction it adds over the GPLv3 is against SaaS providers hoarding the modified sources of downstream forks.
AGPLv3, like all GNU code licenses, in fact protects commercial use. It's part of freedom 0: the right to run the code at any time, in any way, for any purpose. AGPL is actually incompatible with restrictive EULAs like this.
The end result was "if you are using the agpl code as an api enfpoint or you are just reusing the code without any modifications, you don't have to share your entire code to customers because if vitality. Vitality would come up if you modify the code. You can just show you are using agpl code in a license file "
It felt bizzare but that's what it is.
Sspl aims to fix that by making agpl extremely viral. Touch sspl code and you must release ALL OTHER CODE YOU ARE USING.
Afaik due to the virality of GPL, as soon as your proprietary product makes use of a GPL or AGPL library (where "makes use" is my way of saying "links against" in the license parlance), the whole product would need to be distributed under the same (A)GPL license.
"arms length communication".
If you use some AGPL-licensed software without modifications, there are no obligations to make anything available (unless you are also distributing).
