AGPL section 13 turns network use into a disclosure trigger

The workload

Embedding an AGPL-licensed dependency inside a hosted product creates a live question, not a one-time check. Verified: section 13 of the license text states that if you modify the program, your modified version must 'prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network' an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source, at no charge, through a standard means. The workload is keeping a serving mechanism, a source snapshot matching what is actually running, and a visible offer in the product itself, refreshed every time the modified code changes, for as long as the modified service runs.

What the documents show

Verified: the plain GNU GPL requires source disclosure only on 'conveying' a work, and the GPL v3 text defines conveying as propagation that lets others make or receive copies, adding that 'mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.' A SaaS operator running a modified GPL tool without shipping copies triggers nothing. Verified: the FSF's own explanation says the Affero variant exists precisely because server operators could modify a GPL program, run it for the public, and never convey a copy, so downstream developers would never receive the improvements. The Affero clause substitutes network use for conveying as the trigger. The same FSF page is explicit about a limit: the Affero GPL 'does not address' the separate problem of a server doing a user's own computing for them, since having source code does not restore control over what runs on someone else's machine.

The operating cost

The license text names no fee; the cost it imposes is operational, not monetary. Estimated: standing up a Corresponding Source download path costs an engineer's time to script a build-and-publish step and keep it in sync with each deployed change, work that scales with how often the modified code ships, not with revenue. The license does not state a dollar figure for this, and none should be assumed; a founder who wants one has to price their own release cadence against their own hourly cost.

The stop condition

The obligation runs for as long as a modified version is offered to remote users; it stops, per the text, only if the modification is removed, the network offering ends, or the code is swapped for an unmodified or differently licensed alternative. This is a live workload question rather than a settled one, since the license text does not itself resolve how a court would treat any particular integration pattern, only what it requires when its own conditions are met.

• Does the product run a modified copy of the AGPL-licensed dependency, or an unmodified one?
• Is there a working, current source-download path visible to the remote users interacting with it?
• Would swapping the dependency for a differently licensed alternative cost less than maintaining that path indefinitely?

The AGPL's network clause does not forbid using AGPL-licensed code in a SaaS product; it names a specific, checkable condition under which source must follow. Treating that condition as settled by habit rather than by reading section 13 is the actual risk.