I've been reviewing the Affero GPL at the Free Software Foundation website a lot lately, and trying to comment, but a bug affecting the browsers I use has been making that pretty difficult, so I'll just post my thoughts here.
I realized today that there may be a simple way around the Affero GPL license restrictions: distributing modified AGPL code in a machine, which will be used in a private setting via a network, but not providing public availability to the software as a service. For example, a bookkeeping package is licensed under the AGPL so that the original author can have access to derivative, modified works of his or her source code. This keeps the playing field level for various developers to provide the software as a service to the marketplace.
However, what if someone modified the source and instead of providing it to users over a network (which would require them to make their modifications available under the same license), they provide the software in binary form to customers. Would this allow them to skirt their obligations as required by the AGPLv3 agreement? It is sort of like the GPL loophole in reverse.
Perhaps this is where the "GPL" part of the AGPL comes into play - and where the word conveyance is important. In this light, the distributor would be conveying the software - which binds the to the GPL requirements. The GPL states that normal software as a service is not conveyance, and therefore is not affected by the plain old GPL.
Interesting stuff, don't you think? :-)