The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with
&gt; Obligatory: I’m not a lawyer; this is for informational purposes only.<p>and<p>&gt; Google states that if, for example, Google Maps used PostGIS as its data store, and PostGIS used the AGPL, Google would be required to release the Google Maps code. This is not true. They would be required to release their PostGIS patches in this situation. AGPL does not extend the GPL in that it makes the Internet count as a form of linking which creates a derivative work, as Google implies, but rather that it makes anyone who uses the the software via the Internet entitled to its source code.<p>This is the problem: I&#x27;ve fought with IP lawyers we&#x27;ve had on retainer who always boil it down to: &quot;It doesn&#x27;t matter. We&#x27;re not going to court to find out.&quot;<p>Is it FUD? Yes. But I am also not a lawyer, and I can only do so much to fight upwards as an IC. I&#x27;ve seen this exact mindset at every company I&#x27;ve ever worked for or with.<p>The real fear is that once you have an AGPL dependency, it&#x27;s _possible_ that it makes it way into something you really don&#x27;t want to release publicly, and now you have a huge mess of a problem. The easy solution: don&#x27;t use software with that license.<p>(FWIW I hate this, and fully believe competent developers can not shoot themselves in the foot so extravagantly, but alas.)