OK, I'm asking in good faith... Is the AGPL v3 license in accordance with what the owner of iTextSharp says? There appears to be a huge disconnect in the licensing terms for AGPL v3 vs. what iTextSharp says.
The ambiguity is apparently so sharp that Google
forbids usage of any open source software using AGPL:
WARNING: Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MAY NOT be used at Google.
The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.
Do not attempt to check AGPL-licensed code into google3 or use it in a Google product in any way.
Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office.
Given this confusion, does anyone wishing to speak about the economics of open source want to actually talk about the legal amgiguities of open source licensing?