Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
Google lists AGPL as a Category X (not permitted for use) license in its internal open-source compliance policy, which was publicly disclosed around 2011.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
8/4/2026
First Seen
Sources
AGPL还是MIT？开源许可证如何影响项目贡献与社区活跃度
Related Claims
VerifiedWhen Meta released the Llama series, it used a custom license with commercial restrictions, which has been criticized by some free software advocates as not being truly open source.63% similarUnverifiedThe MIT License permits closed-source commercial use, with the only requirement being that copyright and license notices be included in all copies; unlike the GPL license, it has no copyleft effect.62% similarUnverifiedChoosing AGPLv3 over the MIT license provides stronger legal tools for open-source project rights enforcement, because under MIT the other party can even legally omit attribution60% similarUnverifiedOSI对开源的认定要求许可证允许自由使用、修改和分发，且不得对特定领域或用途加以限制59% similarUnverifiedThe Apache 2.0 license, unlike the GPL family, allows users to integrate code into closed-source commercial products and includes explicit patent grant clauses, whereas the MIT license does not include an explicit grant of patent rights.59% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/683640API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/683640MCP
get_claim(id=683640)