[jascii]

Fud. To quote section 13 of the AGPL license: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License."

[GoblinSlayer]

Sounds like generic copyright feature, when you assign license on per file basis in source form. Such compiled combined work will be licensed under AGPL:

13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

[jascii]

"but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such."

I'm not sure where you got this, but that phrasing is not part of the AGPL license as posted on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

[yodon]

AGPL Section 13 as you quote it discussed the interaction of AGPL and GPL v3. It has nothing to do with the scenario the parent commenter was discussing involving the interaction of AGPL and closed-source non-GPL code.

[toast0]

Well, does that allow you to have the rest of your backend GPL licensed and simply not distributed? Nobody has a right to see the code unless they have the executable, and you're not giving anyone the executable, so...

Kind of unfortunate if there's a leak though.