AGPL still only requires you to share the code if you’re sharing the fork in some form (binary or networked).
It's Freedom Zero because you certainly have the freedom to use it, along with a lot of other freedoms. But you have to adopt the license for the code it touches if you involve others in your Freedom Zero use of it.
If you connect to your database using an AGPL licensed db client, you don't have to change all your codebases to AGPL. Unless your code is a modification to the tool, and you are going to distribute it to others, it imposes no obligations whatsoever. It wouldn't even make logical sense. If you write a new browser or even a curl replacement and license it AGPL, and use it to curl Google, would G have to AGPL their entire giant monorepo?
Both my comment (code it touches) and the comment I replied to (sharing the fork) were about this case. Nowhere did I say there was any reason to worry about it if it wasn’t the case, or that it was the most common case. I imagined integrating a browser based SQL client into an enterprise app where you want to give users database access as a scenario where that part of the license might apply.
You can still do the above, and even charge for it! You’re just in the “hosted software” business, not the embrace-extend-extinguish business.
We love open-source and want to give back fully to the community. The AGPL felt like the most open license that still protects against outright theft — something we’ve unfortunately experienced in the past.
AGPL is perfect for this IMHO. The fact that so many people seem to think that even looking at the github page for an AGPL product will mean everything on Earth suddenly has to be AGPLed is their problem, not yours.