It would be better if someone independent set it up.

We're talking about it. The patch is dependent on details of our unreleasable (GPL+OpenSSL+all sorts of other things) server.

uh if it's GPL, don't you have to release it?

Nope. As long as they don't distribute it but only run it in a server, they don't have to. This is what the AGPL is changing.

Not here: you can't do much with AGPL+OpenSSL. AGPL requires release under AGPL. OpenSSL requires advertising clause. There is no legal way to distribute software including parts you have only under APGL and parts you have only under OpenSSL license.

> There is no legal way to distribute software including parts you have only under APGL and parts you have only under OpenSSL license.

If you modified AGPL code you have to release it. If you've mixed up GPL or AGPL code such that you can't release it you've violated the license for the hard work of others. You sound confused, to phrase it charitably.

My interpretation of what he wrote is that it does not change things for them in the sense that due to conflicting licenses, they can't use AGPL'd software, and so the AGPL changes nothing.