ADR-001: AGPL-3.0 Dual Licensing

Date: 2026-03-14 Status: Accepted

Context

Litseer needs a license that: - Keeps the code open for researchers and academics - Preserves the copyright holder's ability to monetize - Makes it harder for someone to take the code and sell it as a competing product - Is accepted in academic/research communities

Options Considered

1. MIT — maximally permissive, anyone can do anything
2. Apache-2.0 — like MIT but adds patent protection
3. AGPL-3.0 — copyleft that extends to network use (SaaS)
4. BSL 1.1 (Business Source License) — commercial use restricted for N years
5. AGPL-3.0 + commercial dual license — AGPL for open source, separate commercial license available

Decision

AGPL-3.0 as the default license, with dual commercial licensing available from the copyright holder.

Rationale

• MIT/Apache would allow competitors to repackage and sell without contributing back
• BSL is less understood in academia and could discourage academic adoption
• AGPL alone gives the copyleft protection — anyone deploying modified versions (including as SaaS) must release source
• Dual licensing means the copyright holder can sell commercial licenses to organizations that can't comply with AGPL
• This is the proven model used by MongoDB, Grafana, and others
• DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) required for contributions to maintain clean copyright ownership

Consequences

• Contributors must sign off commits with DCO (git commit -s)
• A CLA or assignment may be needed if external contributions become significant
• Commercial license terms need to be drafted when there's a buyer (can be deferred)
• The NOTICE file documents AI-assisted development provenance