README Contradicts License File (AGPL-3.0 vs "Non-Commercial Use")

Hi there. During an evaluation of Midday for a potential SaaS architecture, a concerning legal contradiction was noticed between the README.md and the actual LICENSE file.

In your README.md under the "License" section, you state:

"This project is licensed under the AGPL-3.0 for non-commercial use."

However, your LICENSE file contains the exact, unmodified text of the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (AGPL-3.0).

The Contradiction

It is legally impossible to release code under the AGPL-3.0 and simultaneously restrict its commercial use.

The OSI (Open Source Initiative) definition explicitly forbids restricting commercial usage. Furthermore, Section 10 of the AGPL-3.0 explicitly states:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License."

By putting the unmodified AGPL-3.0 license file in your repository, you are legally granting everyone the right to use, modify, and distribute Midday commercially (provided they also open-source their network-facing modifications under the same license). Any "non-commercial only" clause written in the README is legally void because it violates Section 10 of the license you applied.

The Fix

This "fauxpen source" contradiction is a massive red flag for developers and legal teams trying to adopt your software, as it means the repository's licensing is fundamentally invalid.

To fix this, you have a few options:

1. Adopt a true Dual-License standard (Recommended) If you want to keep the AGPL, you need to rephrase the README to explain how dual-licensing actually works:

   • "Midday is licensed under the AGPL-3.0. This allows free commercial and non-commercial use, provided you comply with the AGPL's requirement to open-source your modifications and provide them to your users over the network."
   • "If you wish to use Midday commercially without complying with the strict open-source requirements of the AGPL, you must purchase a commercial license from us."

2. Switch to a custom/Non-Open Source License If you truly want to ban all free commercial use, regardless of whether the user open-sources their code, you cannot use the AGPL. You must replace the LICENSE file with a "Source-Available" license, such as the Business Source License (BSL) or the Fair Core License (FCL). (Note: This means Midday would no longer be considered "Open Source").

It is highly recommended to update the README to clarify the dual-licensing model so developers and legal teams can safely evaluate the project without encountering contradictory license terms.