Just to know if you are not aware, you are putting a penny in a hot debate in the free software community on which license is the more open, is the best.
The MIT is clearly the most permissive because it allows you, among other things, to just run with the software and close it, adding your modification and sell it without sharing source.
Afero GPL prevents you from selling the software or even selling services that run the software without sharing/publishing it.
In a MIT->AGPL swap you will find people who consider it a step into being closer to free software ideals and people who consider it getting further away from it.
Ollama is not open source? It seems to be MIT licensed: https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/LICENSE. Am I overlooking something?
My mistake it I swaped MIT license with AGPL. I was under the impression that an MIT license was less permissive than an AGPL one.
Just to know if you are not aware, you are putting a penny in a hot debate in the free software community on which license is the more open, is the best.
The MIT is clearly the most permissive because it allows you, among other things, to just run with the software and close it, adding your modification and sell it without sharing source.
Afero GPL prevents you from selling the software or even selling services that run the software without sharing/publishing it.
In a MIT->AGPL swap you will find people who consider it a step into being closer to free software ideals and people who consider it getting further away from it.
I was not aware actually but now at least I have a better picture.
So from what you’ve described I would consider AGPL to be closer to my ideals.