The user of a program is the one who installs it somewhere and runs it.
Outside people interacting with the program are visitors. They don't have the source code because they don't have the program at all in any form. It has not been distributed to them.
The source code to the program doesn't even do them any good. They cannot use that to prevent harms perpetrated by the operators of that application.
A EULA needs to be a contract. THe AGPL is clearly not a contract nor does it meet the basic requirements for an enforceable contract in common law countries. Can you show me where I am wrong about this?
> The source code to the program doesn't even do them any good. They cannot use that to prevent harms perpetrated by the operators of that application.
It does. It means they can run their own instance instead of being permanently tied to the operator of the service. It means they can modify and run the software.
> They don't have the source code because they don't have to program at all in any form.
That is sophistry. For the type of software AGPL is designed for the functionality provided is the same as it would if they had their own install. It is called "software as a service" for a reason.
The reason the AGPL exists is because the rise of SAAS has made the distinction you are making meaningless.
> They don't have the source code because they don't have to program at all in any form.
Users of GPL software do not "have to program". The point is they can. The same is true with AGPL.
> A EULA needs to be a contract. THe AGPL is clearly not a contract nor does it meet the basic requirements for an enforceable contract in common law countries. Can you show me where I am wrong about this?
Sorry that was a typo we should have said "do not have the program" (corrected).
But no the same is not true of the user of the AGPL. The GPL user having the source code and being able to program or hire somebody is utterly meaningful. That user controls the installation of the program. They would like the program to do something differently, or not to do something unwanted. With the buildable source code they can achieve that.
The visitor to the AGPL application have access to the source code has no meaning at all. They don't have the administrative access to replace the implementation (and even if they did, that was just create conflict with the other ivisitors).
The ability to set up your own clone instance its completely meaningless. For example suppose that's some government service website is using AGPL software. What do you gain by downloading the software and running your own instance? That's not where your data is; you can't use that cloned instance to communicate with the service agency.
It is the AGPL that's using outdated concepts in a new context where they don't make sense. (Licensing helped us win the open source war in the 1990s and 2000s, so it'll work this time too right?)
You also may be thinking of the software of being something like a photo editor or word processing application that is hosted, but in which the visitor works with only their own files in isolation from other visitors, and from the site operators. I don't think that's the main target for the AGPL. That may be called "strawman AGPL". I tend to agree that the AGPL may be effective in this limited situation. But effective is not the same as free. A "free for personal use" software license is also effective at achieving the aims of its purveyor but isn't free.
It helps in strawman cases when users have the data, and the platform doesn't have social features. For instance, oh, an online photo editor used by the user in isolation, on either local files or easily downloadable files. User doesn't like that instance, so they find the AGPLed source code and run their own, bringing all their files.
(Why, in that situation, would the user be entitled to the custom modifications in that instance they are abandoning? If you don't like that instance for whatever reason, but like the features, tough luck. Code your own.)
Nope. It can just be a piece of text you agree with when opening a classic mass-marked app in a shrink-warpped box ("shrink-wrap EULA") or a dialog box with text where you have to click that by using the software, you agree with the licensing terms.
Exactly the same as when you deploy an AGPL program for visitors, you are agreeing to its EULA.
Regardless, it can't be the case that the GNU Affero GPL is not a contract, whereas some Microsoft EULA is, or vice versa. They are an instance of exactly the same category.
The user of a program is the one who installs it somewhere and runs it.
Outside people interacting with the program are visitors. They don't have the source code because they don't have the program at all in any form. It has not been distributed to them.
The source code to the program doesn't even do them any good. They cannot use that to prevent harms perpetrated by the operators of that application.