That's usually my first reaction to the AGPL -- Because most open source projects I try to file away as "This might be useful for XYZ client, or in a project that does UUU"

I'm not sure that this fits in that criteria, I could imagine installing this on a server, unmodified, and just for internal use. You're not breaking the license from my understanding, and you got some use without selling or modifying it.

This seems like the only time that I'm interested in something that's AGPL. I get most frustrated when things like libraries or widgets are marked as AGPL.

If I write a git pre-commit script for my repo in githaven, is that forced to be agpl?

I'm using githaven and yes.

If I want Geckoboard to show a chart of how many githaven commit per day I did, do I need to agpl geckoboard.com?

I don't know.

I'm not a lawyer. This is my interpretation and I would like comments.

<gnu.org> In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network?”

<gnu.org> If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played online.

AGPL only grants an exception to GPL code. Not the unlicensed and presumed to be owned by the person who wrote it code.

Nitpick: Well I would say precommit hooks interact with git and not githaven.

I'm comparing it to GitLabs which is mit. This is why I have no interest. I'm working on issue 13.

http://gitlabhq.com/

What would you like? I can change it.

I don't know. Githaven doesn't have a good enough graphical design for me. Ask people who use githaven.

GPL2 is the standard trusted license. If you want less restrictions, you can use mit/bsd.

Read up on the OSI licenses. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category