# ADR 037: AGPL-3.0 License

- HTML version: https://robbiepalmer.me/projects/personal-site/adrs/037-agpl-license
- Project: Personal Site (https://robbiepalmer.me/projects/personal-site.md)
- Status: Accepted
- Date: 2026-01-11

# Context

This project had no license, which means no one has legal rights to contribute,
fork, or build upon it. I need to choose a license that aligns with my goals:

1. **Dependency freedom**: I want to freely adopt any dependency to further
   the project's features. The strongest copyleft license covers most cases.

2. **Build in public without strategic doubt**: AGPL's strong copyleft means
   anyone who builds on this work must also open-source their modifications.
   This removes the concern that sharing openly could enable a closed-source
   competitor. Combined with my retained rights as author (see next point),
   I can focus purely on building without second-guessing what should be public.

3. **Preserve future flexibility**: As the sole author, I retain rights to my
   code regardless of the public license—I can create a differently-licensed
   fork at any time. A Contributor License Agreement (CLA) extends this
   flexibility to contributions, enabling potential open-core models or
   license changes without legal complications.

4. **Aligned with agile principles**: Don't predict the future. Enable
   optionality rather than hamstringing myself with premature decisions.

## Alternatives Considered

* **MIT/Apache**: Too permissive. Allows proprietary forks without contributing
  back. Doesn't match my "build in public" philosophy.

* **GPL**: Strong copyleft, but AGPL adds the network clause. Important for a
  web project where someone could run a modified version without distributing.

* **No license** (status quo): Blocks all contributions. Not viable if I want
  community involvement.

# Decision

Use **AGPL-3.0** with a **Contributor License Agreement**.

The AGPL-3.0 ensures that any modifications—including those deployed over a
network—must share source code. This matches my goal of building in public.

The [CLA](https://gist.github.com/Robbie-Palmer/94798c38da1307cfc60ab98dc0984818) grants
me relicensing rights over contributions, preserving future flexibility (open-core,
license changes) while keeping all current code open under AGPL-3.0.

CLA enforcement is handled by [cla-assistant](https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant),
which prompts contributors to sign when they open a pull request.

# Consequences

### Pros

* **Strongest copyleft**: Derivative works must remain open source, including
  network deployments.
* **Dependency compatibility**: Can incorporate most copyleft-licensed code.
* **Clear open-source stance**: No ambiguity about the project's nature.
* **Future optionality**: CLA preserves ability to relicense or create
  proprietary versions without contributor coordination.

### Cons

* **May deter some contributors**: AGPL has stigma in corporate environments.
  Some companies prohibit employees from contributing to AGPL projects.
* **CLA friction**: Contributors must sign before their first PR merges.
  Minimal friction with cla-assistant, but still an extra step.

---

Markdown index of this site: https://robbiepalmer.me/llms.txt