Project consumption under AGPL V3

Question

The title may be wrong. I was looking to clarify some confusions for my PKDSA project on GitHub. There are two licenses that I choose for my project. 90% of the code is actually licensed under AGPL V3 whereas 10% of the code is actually licensed under MIT/ISC license.

If someone actually work on the portions of code that were in MIT/ISC license, I don't think that there'll be issues (correct me if i am wrong).

From what I know, AGPL/GPL actually have certain terms. I have some questions on the terms.

1. If there's any changes made to the source code that belongs to AGPL, the modifications actually need to be disclosed to all parties who involved. However, if let's say someone uses the code (without modifications), they can either extend or just use as it's (for their own use such as code consumption or mixing their own in house systems with my project), in such a situation, does the developer who create such work consider as "derivative work" or "modification"?
2. The source code distribution of the AGPL project, can developers just put links or credit to my project or the source code distribution has to be downloaded from my repository and then distribute to the respected parties? Does it need both?
3. If someone uses the work as it's without any modifications, how does the copyright notices or something similar applies? What are the steps to do such notification or notices?

If someone uses my AGPL code, what could be the things that they need to know? Are there any missing questions that people will raised if they use my AGPL code? Does a mixture of MIT and AGPL license actually allowed?

There may be more questions but for now I can't think of any other questions.

Answer 1

Does a mixture of MIT and AGPL license actually allowed?

Yes, it is allowed to have different portions of a repository under different licenses, provided that you can make it clear which license applies to which portion of the repository and that those portions are not derivative works of each other.

You have a clear description of what is under which license in your README.md file, so you are good on that point.

---

The AGPL is a strong copyleft license. This means that

• If a binary or a service is in part made up of code under the AGPL license, then the entire binary or service becomes subject to the terms and conditions of the AGPL license.

• When someone receives a binary, or interacts with a service that is subject to the terms and conditions of the AGPL, then that person has the right to receive all the source code that is needed to rebuild the binary or service exactly. They also get the right to make changes to the code and to re-deploy it with or without changes. That re-deployment is again subject to the terms and conditions of the AGPL license.

• When someone uses your AGPL code unchanged in their project, they are allowed to link to your GitHub repository as a means to satisfy (part of) the requirement that the source code is made available. This does not work if they deployed a changed version of your code.

If there's any changes made to the source code that belongs to AGPL, the modifications actually need to be disclosed to all parties who involved.

There is no such requirement in the AGPL license. There needs to be a record that changes were made, but the changes do not need to be actively communicated back to the project that you received the code from.

However, if let's say someone uses the code (without modifications), they can either extend or just use as it's (for their own use such as code consumption or mixing their own in house systems with my project), in such a situation, does the developer who create such work consider as "derivative work" or "modification"?

From a legal copyright perspective, there is no difference between "modification" and "derivative work". When a modification is made, that creates a derivative work.