Not a legal argument but what is the possibility of modifying and redistributing the software worth of the entire branding (!), etc. have to be kept intact. Doesn’t that impose limits on modifications in the first place? Doesn’t feel much like the idea of a viral copyleft license.
Also, if the first thing after a prominent fork is starting a legal fight over subtleties in the license with the goal of preserving one’s brand, I’m not so sure why the software was distributed with an AGPL in the first place.
The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.
Not a legal argument but what is the possibility of modifying and redistributing the software worth of the entire branding (!), etc. have to be kept intact. Doesn’t that impose limits on modifications in the first place? Doesn’t feel much like the idea of a viral copyleft license. Also, if the first thing after a prominent fork is starting a legal fight over subtleties in the license with the goal of preserving one’s brand, I’m not so sure why the software was distributed with an AGPL in the first place. The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.