Why MIT, not AGPL

A lot of the self-hostable tools I looked at while building Inbxer ship under AGPL. It's a defensible choice — AGPL forces anyone who runs your code as a network service to release their modifications too, which mainly exists to stop a cloud provider from taking your project, hosting it, and never contributing anything back.

What AGPL optimizes for

It protects the project from a specific kind of competitor. The cost is that it makes a lot of companies nervous to even evaluate the code — legal review, copyleft obligations on anything they touch, questions their own customers will ask. For a support tool that's supposed to earn trust by being readable, that friction works against the point.

Why that wasn't the trade I wanted

I'd rather someone read the code, run it, fork it, and embed pieces of it into something else without booking time with a lawyer first. And if I ever lose to someone hosting Inbxer better than I do, I'd rather that be because they built something better, not because a license kept them from trying.

What ships in the free build

This isn't a license trick to make a crippled version look generous. SSO, audit logs and the full API are in the free, self-hosted MIT build — the same code that runs Cloud. I charge for hosting and support, not for features held back behind a license.