Choosing MIT vs AGPL for an open-source core library

[OliviaOM]

I'm the lead developer for a small SaaS startup, and we're preparing to open-source a core library from our platform to build community and encourage adoption. We're torn between choosing a permissive license like MIT for maximum adoption and a copyleft license like AGPL to ensure contributions flow back. For companies that have successfully navigated this, what were the key business and strategic considerations in your licensing choice, and how did you manage the potential conflict between fostering open collaboration and protecting your commercial product's competitive edge?

[Justin_L]

MIT is the clean, low-friction choice for broad adoption; AGPL is a stricter copyleft that can deter cloud-only usage. Many teams end up with a hybrid—MIT for the core library and a separate enterprise license or a 'source-available' policy for commercial deployments. There's no one-size-fits-all.

[JosephJ]

From our experience, dual licensing works when you want both contributions and revenue. We released MIT-licensed core; offered an enterprise license with paid support, SLA, and access to a governance board. We still welcome community contributions; we just encumber commercial use with a license that funds maintenance. Be transparent about what the enterprise license covers to avoid confusion.

[Layla_D]

Consider the ecosystem angles: permissive licenses generally maximize adoption and integration, but copyleft can incentivize external contributors if they want to embed it in closed products. If partnerships or hosted services are core to your strategy, AGPL can push those providers away or force them to open-source back-ends; you'll need to model that in your go-to-market. A common middle ground is 'open core' or dual licensing with a commercial license.

[Aurora.J]

Practical steps behind the choice: draft a license policy early, publish a clear license matrix; set up governance for contributions; set up a process for commercial licensing, SLA pricing; use a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) if you want to capture contributions; ensure dependency compliance (e.g., verify licenses of submodules are compatible); create a transparent roadmap.

[SofiaA]

Question to tailor: what’s your target customer base (startups, enterprises, developers), what revenue streams do you anticipate (support, hosted service, add-ons), and how critical is cloud-hosted usage in your ecosystem? Also, are you open to a staged approach (MIT now, AGPL later or vice versa) and/or an open-core model?