License comparisons

Which licenses actually differ, and where.

Two licenses can be described in nearly the same words and still produce opposite answers — or be described very differently and produce identical ones. What separates them is usually a single clause interacting with a single fact: how the software reaches its users.

• AGPL-3.0-only vs GPL-3.0-only — Differ in 1 of 5 shipping models. The most consequential pair for anyone running a hosted service. They diverge on exactly one thing.
• GPL-3.0-only vs LGPL-3.0-only — Differ in 3 of 5 shipping models. Both are copyleft, but only one of them cares how you link.
• AGPL-3.0-only vs MPL-2.0 — Differ in 4 of 5 shipping models. Often lumped together as "copyleft to avoid". They are not remotely the same obligation.
• MIT vs Apache-2.0 — Same verdict everywhere. Same practical outcome for shipping. The difference is patents and NOTICE, not disclosure.
• GPL-2.0-only vs GPL-3.0-only — Same verdict everywhere. A version bump that changed what you must hand over with a device.
• MPL-2.0 vs LGPL-3.0-only — Same verdict everywhere. Both are called "weak copyleft". Only one of them constrains how you link.
• AGPL-3.0-only vs SSPL-1.0 — Differ in 5 of 5 shipping models. One is open source with a network clause; the other is not open source at all.
• MIT vs AGPL-3.0-only — Differ in 4 of 5 shipping models. The two ends of the range, for when the question is simply "how bad is this".

LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.

Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).