On the license there are 3 main "propagation" clauses: Conveying Verbatim Copies / Conveying Modified Source Versions / Conveying Non-Source Forms
Furthermore: Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies / Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients
On the other hand, the "issue" seems to be an Aferro-like clause that conveying it as a service combined/linked with other software over a network _counts_ as distribution an gives a right to the users to request the source code that makes the service work.
Or the Open Source Definition from https://opensource.org/osd
On the license there are 3 main "propagation" clauses: Conveying Verbatim Copies / Conveying Modified Source Versions / Conveying Non-Source Forms
Furthermore: Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies / Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients
On the other hand, the "issue" seems to be an Aferro-like clause that conveying it as a service combined/linked with other software over a network _counts_ as distribution an gives a right to the users to request the source code that makes the service work.
Here is Google rejection of APGL on this basis: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/