But his wouldn't be the case even if MySQL was AGPL. The license would only apply to the database itself and not your backend or frontend code.
The difference would be if your code used a library that was GPL/AGPL. For server-side software, under the GPL, mere users wouldn't be entitled to the code, while under the AGPL they would be.
This also assumes that library was used in a way that counts as derivative work, which isn't always the case.
> This also assumes that library was used in a way that counts as derivative work, which isn't always the case.
That's something a court would have to decide.
Whenever the AGPL comes up, people start arguing that in their opinion it doesn't cover certain things and therefore criticism of the license is fear mongering, but this misses the point that even if there is room to argue for that position, no company is going to want to touch AGPL software when the situation is ambiguous, since that creates a lot of risk, so that ambiguity is itself a fatal flaw of the AGPL license.
But none of these problems are relevant to GPL vs AGPL, they apply equally to both. Seriously, just diff the text of both licenses - the only difference is article 13, which is very clear and unambiguous:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.
It's like saying that Oracle owns my product because I use MySQL.