Documentation seems to mislead about the contagiousness of the `AGPL-3.0-only` LICENSE

[linghengqian]

• I noticed that the documentation https://doc.flowlong.com/docs/authorization.html seems to mislead about the infectiousness of the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE.
• 
• I assume that this 开源版 refers to the current Git. In fact, the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE has never prohibited commercial use, as long as the commercial scenario complies with the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE. This description of 只允许自用 does not sound like an AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, but more like a EULA for commercial software.

If the final product of the 开源版 is the EULA

• I think this may involve an ambiguous interpretation of the document. For the copyright owner of the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, the source code can be the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, while the 开源版 and 企业版 published on the website can be EULA. If this is actually the understanding, the 开源版 can certainly be considered as 只允许自用, because the EULA is very flexible. This is also what Sonatype did at https://github.com/sonatype/nexus-public/issues/316 . I'm not sure whether the final product of the 开源版 is EULA or AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE.
• If the final product of the 开源版 is EULA, the current issue can be closed as there is nothing wrong with it.

If the final product of the 开源版 is the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE

• If the final product of the 开源版 is the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, the description of this document sounds like there is room for improvement.
• The AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE establishes several valid agreements. Software based on/linked with/using an AGPL library is considered software that modifies that software. It does not matter whether we put the extra code in the library's jar or in a separate jar. For users, using an AGPL library in a non-AGPL environment is illegal. This does not actually conflict with commercial use.
• Considering that the AGPL environment of flowlong includes a Spring Boot project server and a Java client Spring Boot Starter, let's assume such a scenario.

1. Package flowlong's Spring Boot project server into a Docker Image, which is open source with AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE
2. All functions of the flowlong Java client are encapsulated into an independent Java project flow-test-restful, and flow-test-restful will be open sourced with AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, flow-test-restful will provide a Docker Image of AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE and expose the Restful API.

• Assume there is a commercial project another-test, which is not distributed as software, it is only provided as a service. At this point, if the commercial project another-test only uses the Restful API of the Docker image of flow-test-restful, it does not trigger the infectivity of the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE. another-test is not actually required to implement source code distribution for commercial projects, and the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE does not prevent its commercial use. All another-test really does is display the licenses and download links for the source code of the third-party dependencies.
• Because the AGPL is a copyright-based license, it only affects programs or other creative works derived from components covered by the AGPL. A REST API or command-line interface can help draw a clear line that two programs are clearly separate and not derived. If this is the case, then the Corresponding Source would only cover the AGPL-covered library and the REST API surrounding it, but not the client that connects to the REST API. This is also a further process isolation. This is the view of https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/13252 and also the view of https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/5011. The background is Belgian law and the opinions of relevant lawyers.
• This is actually how Grafana and Minio work, and why the servers of Grafana and Minio use the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, but third-party clients can use the Apache-2.0 LICENSE.
• From this perspective, I think the document's 只允许自用 should be changed to 只允许在 AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE 的环境下商用.

Summarize

• I actually want to confirm whether the final product of the 开源版 is the EULA or the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE. If the final product of the 开源版 is the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, I think the document needs to be revised.
• Of course, there is also the possibility that I or other communities have problems understanding the AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE, and I can synchronize the relevant views to https://opensource.stackexchange.com/ .

[qmdx]

目前采用 AGPL 3.0 授权

[linghengqian]

目前采用 AGPL 3.0 授权

• @qmdx I noticed that the documentation is supposed to be closed source? I assume the documentation description could be more precise. If there is no intention to change the documentation, I can close the issue.

From this perspective, I think the document's 只允许自用 should be changed to 只允许在 AGPL-3.0-only LICENSE 的环境下商用.