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".
Not sure which licenses your project pulls in? Paste a lockfile.
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.