It's not AGPL 3.0. The binaries are MIT, the codebase (from where the MIT binaries are built from) is AGPL 3.0, except for the bits of the codebase that are Apache 2.0, and there's some kind of a promise about not enforcing a part of AGPL if you don't link to their platform directly and exclusively use the bits of the code that are Apache 2.0, and also don't make a modified version of the software. And also you can just license it commercially too.
It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement that suchandsuch code is licensed under AGPL v3.0.
The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
londons_explore|27 days ago
It is AGPL 3.0, except they give you slightly more rights with a promise not to enforce certain provisions in certain circumstances.
Hamuko|27 days ago
unknown|27 days ago
[deleted]
wccrawford|27 days ago
SpicyLemonZest|27 days ago
The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.