It's not "consensus" in the sense of "unanimity" (is anything ever, when it comes to widely used terms?) but there's a "consensus" in the sense of widespread agreement to use the OSI's definition.
> Is AGPL open source?
Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It meets all the standard requirements (https://opensource.org/osd) and the OSI has approved it.
If I were to run a modified AGPL'd SSH server on my own hardware, the question of whether I'm violating the AGPL depends on whether I'm allowing others to access it remotely. If the AGPL can be violated without copyright infringement, it's clearly in a different legal category than the GPL.
That "[AGPL] meets all the standard requirements" and "OSI has approved it" is really an indictment of OSI judgment, not a sound argument with basis in copyright law.
Comments
> there is no consensus on what is "open source"
It's not "consensus" in the sense of "unanimity" (is anything ever, when it comes to widely used terms?) but there's a "consensus" in the sense of widespread agreement to use the OSI's definition.
> Is AGPL open source?
Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It meets all the standard requirements (https://opensource.org/osd) and the OSI has approved it.
Many have argued the AGPL is a EULA, not a proper software license. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 for example:
That "[AGPL] meets all the standard requirements" and "OSI has approved it" is really an indictment of OSI judgment, not a sound argument with basis in copyright law.