Skip to content

README Contradicts License File (AGPL-3.0 vs "Non-Commercial Use") #785

Description

@jav-ed

Hi there. During an evaluation of Midday for a potential SaaS architecture, a concerning legal contradiction was noticed between the README.md and the actual LICENSE file.

In your README.md under the "License" section, you state:

"This project is licensed under the AGPL-3.0 for non-commercial use."

However, your LICENSE file contains the exact, unmodified text of the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (AGPL-3.0).

The Contradiction

It is legally impossible to release code under the AGPL-3.0 and simultaneously restrict its commercial use.

The OSI (Open Source Initiative) definition explicitly forbids restricting commercial usage. Furthermore, Section 10 of the AGPL-3.0 explicitly states:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License."

By putting the unmodified AGPL-3.0 license file in your repository, you are legally granting everyone the right to use, modify, and distribute Midday commercially (provided they also open-source their network-facing modifications under the same license). Any "non-commercial only" clause written in the README is legally void because it violates Section 10 of the license you applied.

The Fix

This "fauxpen source" contradiction is a massive red flag for developers and legal teams trying to adopt your software, as it means the repository's licensing is fundamentally invalid.

To fix this, you have a few options:

  1. Adopt a true Dual-License standard (Recommended)
    If you want to keep the AGPL, you need to rephrase the README to explain how dual-licensing actually works:

    • "Midday is licensed under the AGPL-3.0. This allows free commercial and non-commercial use, provided you comply with the AGPL's requirement to open-source your modifications and provide them to your users over the network."
    • "If you wish to use Midday commercially without complying with the strict open-source requirements of the AGPL, you must purchase a commercial license from us."
  2. Switch to a custom/Non-Open Source License
    If you truly want to ban all free commercial use, regardless of whether the user open-sources their code, you cannot use the AGPL. You must replace the LICENSE file with a "Source-Available" license, such as the Business Source License (BSL) or the Fair Core License (FCL). (Note: This means Midday would no longer be considered "Open Source").

It is highly recommended to update the README to clarify the dual-licensing model so developers and legal teams can safely evaluate the project without encountering contradictory license terms.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions