feedback: Licensing Problem: Cannot Add Restrictions to MIT License - Suggest AGPL Instead #599

New issue

Open

opened 2025-10-14 16:04:35 -06:00 by navan · 0 comments

navan commented

2025-10-14 16:04:35 -06:00

Owner

Originally created by @akmalulkhairin on 6/4/2025

Feedback Summary

The current licensing setup creates legal confusion by combining MIT License with contradictory custom restrictions. You cannot modify MIT License and still call it "MIT License" - this creates a legally problematic situation that undermines the project's credibility.

User Context

As developers evaluating Task Master for potential use in commercial projects, we need clear legal certainty about what we can and cannot do with the code. The current licensing makes it impossible to assess compliance requirements.

User Impact

The contradictory license terms create several critical issues:

Legal uncertainty about when a "product built using Task Master" becomes a "competing product"
Cannot rely on established MIT License legal precedent due to custom modifications
Companies and developers avoid projects with unclear licensing
Potential legal exposure for anyone using the software

Suggestions

Switch to AGPL v3 which actually accomplishes your licensing goals:

Prevents competitors from offering hosted versions without contributing back
Allows legitimate application development using your code
Provides clear, court-tested legal framework
Is honest about restrictions instead of masquerading as permissive

AGPL requires anyone running modified versions as a network service to release their source code, effectively preventing SaaS competitors while allowing genuine use cases.

Relevant Screenshots or Examples

Current licensing states:

✅ "Create and sell products built using Task Master"
❌ "Create competing products based on Task Master"

This contradiction makes compliance impossible to determine.

Additional Notes

Resources for AGPL consideration:

*Originally created by @akmalulkhairin on 6/4/2025* ### Feedback Summary The current licensing setup creates legal confusion by combining MIT License with contradictory custom restrictions. You cannot modify MIT License and still call it "MIT License" - this creates a legally problematic situation that undermines the project's credibility. ### User Context As developers evaluating Task Master for potential use in commercial projects, we need clear legal certainty about what we can and cannot do with the code. The current licensing makes it impossible to assess compliance requirements. ### User Impact The contradictory license terms create several critical issues: - Legal uncertainty about when a "product built using Task Master" becomes a "competing product" - Cannot rely on established MIT License legal precedent due to custom modifications - Companies and developers avoid projects with unclear licensing - Potential legal exposure for anyone using the software ### Suggestions **Switch to AGPL v3** which actually accomplishes your licensing goals: - Prevents competitors from offering hosted versions without contributing back - Allows legitimate application development using your code - Provides clear, court-tested legal framework - Is honest about restrictions instead of masquerading as permissive AGPL requires anyone running modified versions as a network service to release their source code, effectively preventing SaaS competitors while allowing genuine use cases. ### Relevant Screenshots or Examples Current licensing states: - ✅ "Create and sell products built using Task Master" - ❌ "Create competing products based on Task Master" This contradiction makes compliance impossible to determine. ### Additional Notes Resources for AGPL consideration: - [[AGPL v3 License Text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html) - [[Choose a License: AGPL](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/)](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/)