[zvr]

Interesting and I haven't tried it yet.

But the "Usage Guidelines" part of the "License" section at the end of the README says: "License required for: Commercial embedding in products you sell or offering Mantic as a hosted service."

This is not completely true, since it seems that the software is licensed under AGPLv3, which of course allow the use of the software for any purpose, even commercial.

[d0100]

Its also small enough that a simple "Claude, migrate to Rust" would work to succesfully launder all the code

[marcoaapfortes]

Thank you! I shipped a new version with the correct license

[mike_hearn]

Are you sure it's correct? It says it's AGPL but the explanation given sounds like what you want is actually the LGPL. AGPL is about what happens if you expose a program as a SaaS and is generally banned from any company due to the "viral" nature i.e. a service that used Mantic would need to be fully open sourced even if the code was never distributed.

LGPL is for libraries: you can use an LGPLd program in proprietary software, but you have to make the source of the LGPLd program with modifications available if you distribute it. It doesn't infect the rest of the program, and it doesn't have any clauses that trigger for SaaS scenarios.

Your current explanation doesn't jive with my understanding the AGPL. For example, you cannot realistically sell a service that incorporates an AGPLd component because it'd require you to open source the entire service.

[marcoaapfortes]

Thanks for the correction, you’re right that I mixed up LGPL and AGPL there. I haven’t updated the license yet but I plan to adjust it so it better matches the usage model and doesn’t create the “everything must be open source” issue you mentioned. Really appreciate you pointing it out. Thanks Mike!

[mike_hearn]

You're welcome!