Question 1

What is the difference between MIT and AGPL-3.0-only?

Accepted Answer

Hosted SaaS: MIT — MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only section 13 requires that users interacting with a modified version over a network be offered the corresponding source of the whole work. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which triggers that obligation. This is the clause that makes AGPL behave differently from GPL for hosted services. Distributed binary: MIT — MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. On-premises delivery: MIT — MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it. Published library: MIT — MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only — AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it.

Question 2

For hosted saas, is MIT or AGPL-3.0-only more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

MIT: MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only section 13 requires that users interacting with a modified version over a network be offered the corresponding source of the whole work. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which triggers that obligation. This is the clause that makes AGPL behave differently from GPL for hosted services.

Question 3

For distributed binary, is MIT or AGPL-3.0-only more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

MIT: MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it.

Question 4

For on-premises delivery, is MIT or AGPL-3.0-only more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

MIT: MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it.

Question 5

For internal use only, is MIT or AGPL-3.0-only more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

MIT: MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only section 13 applies when users interact with the software remotely over a network, and its inherited GPL terms apply on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, so neither obligation arises.

Question 6

For published library, is MIT or AGPL-3.0-only more restrictive?

Accepted Answer

MIT: MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. AGPL-3.0-only: AGPL-3.0-only carries the GPL-3.0 copyleft terms it is built on: distributing a work that incorporates it requires licensing the whole work under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which is distribution and triggers that obligation. Section 13 additionally extends this over a network, so hosting the same code would not avoid it.

How you ship	MIT	AGPL-3.0-only
Hosted SaaS	No obligation	Obligation triggered	They differ here
Distributed binary	No obligation	Obligation triggered	They differ here
On-premises delivery	No obligation	Obligation triggered	They differ here
Internal use only	No obligation	No obligation	Same
Published library	No obligation	Obligation triggered	They differ here

MIT vs AGPL-3.0-only

Can you use them, and where?

Side by side

MIT

AGPL-3.0-only