[jand]

Was there a specific reason to use AGPL-3.0? Not critizing, just asking.

Tried to read about the license and was greeted by a tl;dr summary of the AGPL-3.0 license [1]. I am no lawyer but my gut tells me that providing such a summary is an invitation to strange disputes. Take care.

[1] https://mercure.rocks/docs/hub/license

[emacsen]

Also not a lawyer, but discussed this with multiple lawyers. As long as you make very clear that you're summarizing the legal document, but the legal document you're providing is the canonical truth, you're allowed to provide those kind of summaries.

For example, Creative Commons has a visual/bullet point explanation of their licenses. That's entirely okay, as the legal text is the core license.

I had a similar discussion with a lawyer once about a TOS that also included a summary. The lawyer told me that as long as you make it clear that your summary is just a summary, and is not the agreement, and you point out the actual agreement, you're okay.

In this case, the OP is pointing to the legal text clearly and merely summarizing it's most salient points.

Again, IANAL and this is not legal advice.