> AGPL doesn't cover internal software if you don't expose it outside of the company.
Yes indeed, you can use AGPL software internally without redistributing the source code, as you can with GPL software by the way (since AGPL is GPL + restrictions). The FSF actually considers a license that doesn't allow private use without distribution non-free, like the Watcom 1.0 license [1,2] (while the OSI does consider this license open source [3]).
Now, I think this is a property of the license, not the copyright laws which do allow authors to place such restrictions. That's why you can't freely use Windows or Photoshop privately.
Making the user click a "I agree" checkbox is one way of letting them know the terms and conditions, but not the only one.
Yes indeed, you can use AGPL software internally without redistributing the source code, as you can with GPL software by the way (since AGPL is GPL + restrictions). The FSF actually considers a license that doesn't allow private use without distribution non-free, like the Watcom 1.0 license [1,2] (while the OSI does consider this license open source [3]).
Now, I think this is a property of the license, not the copyright laws which do allow authors to place such restrictions. That's why you can't freely use Windows or Photoshop privately.
Making the user click a "I agree" checkbox is one way of letting them know the terms and conditions, but not the only one.
[1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Watcom-1.0
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom
[3] https://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0