AGPL vs MIT: when does it actually matter?

If you're starting a new open source project, you'll pick a license in the first 5 minutes. The two most common choices — MIT and AGPL — sit at opposite ends of the freedom-vs-protection axis. They optimize for different things.

The trade-off in one sentence

MIT maximizes adoption (anyone can take your code and use it however). AGPL maximizes downstream openness (anyone running modified code as a service must release their source).

Pick MIT when…

• —You're building a library — utilities, components, framework helpers — meant to be embedded inside products.
• —You don't have commercial intent and just want max reach.
• —You're starting out and need to grow adoption fast (most VC-backed open core companies start MIT/Apache and switch later).
• —Your project has obvious copy-paste alternatives — a more restrictive license just sends users to a competitor.

Pick AGPL when…

• —You're building an end-user product (Mastodon, NextCloud, Plausible) where people will run it as a service.
• —You explicitly want to prevent cloud providers from selling your work as a managed service without sharing improvements.
• —You're planning to dual-license — AGPL for the community, commercial license for enterprises that want to ship closed-source.
• —You're aligned with the FSF's view that copyleft preserves user freedom long-term.

The dual-license pattern

Many of the most successful open source businesses use AGPL + commercial dual-licensing. Plausible, Listmonk, Posthog (until late 2024), MinIO — all do this. The community gets AGPL for free; enterprises that don't want the AGPL trigger pay for a commercial license. Done right, this is a clean defense against cloud-extraction without the OSD-violating restrictions of BSL/SSPL.

What about Apache 2.0?

Apache 2.0 is MIT's slightly more grown-up cousin — same permissions, plus an explicit patent grant. If you're worried about patent litigation (any infrastructure project, anything used in regulated industries), pick Apache. Otherwise MIT is shorter and easier to read.

What about "no license"?

If you publish code with no LICENSE file, default copyright applies — which means nobody can legally use your code at all. The default of "no license" is the most restrictive option, even though it feels permissive. Always add a LICENSE.