The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user.
The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providing it input can get its source, with an advertising clause. Anyone bound by the license does not have Freedom Zero.
If I understand correctly, the issue you see is not related to the AGPL version 3 only but also to the GPL version 3 as the "2. Basic Permissions" are shared between the two licenses. Could you point us to the specific section or sentence disallowing the freedon #0?
Regarding the "enforcement boundary", the AGPL is more there to not abuse the "private use" ("not conveying") of a free software as described here :
In AGPL, You can run the software but if you make it accessible to end-users via a public network in a interactive way, this is considered as conveying.
The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user.
The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providing it input can get its source, with an advertising clause. Anyone bound by the license does not have Freedom Zero.