Unverified50% confidenceDecision RuleExact time
AGPL, GPL, and SSPL are open-source licenses that warrant close attention, while MIT, Apache 2.0, and the BSD family are generally commercially friendly.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/12/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses permit commercial use and closed-source modifications, the GPL requires derivative works to also be open-sourced, and the AGPL requires open-sourcing even when software is provided as a service over a network.78% similarUnverifiedThe core difference between AGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0 is that AGPL includes network services within the scope of distribution, meaning source code must be disclosed even when deployed as a SaaS service75% similarUnverifiedAGPL closes the traditional GPL's ASP Loophole by treating network interaction as equivalent to distribution, requiring software that provides services over a network to also make its source code public.70% similarUnverifiedIf you want a project to be adopted as widely as possible, choose MIT or Apache 2.0; if you insist that derivatives must always remain open source, choose the GPL family; when in doubt, MIT is the safest default choice.69% similarUnverifiedAGPL (Affero GPL) treats 'providing services over a network' as a form of 'distribution,' thereby closing the legal loophole of the SaaS model.69% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/913288API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/913288MCP
get_claim(id=913288)