Same licence and the same additional term as the web repository: the two
halves are one product, and licensing them differently would leave the
question of what a derivative of the whole owes unanswerable.
The AGPL rather than the GPL because this service is meant to be hosted,
and section 13 is what obliges whoever hosts a modified copy to offer its
source to the people using it. The section 7(b) term in LICENSE-ADDENDUM
requires the attribution to be preserved, including in the Appropriate
Legal Notices a derivative displays.
The pom's licence, developer and scm blocks were the empty placeholders
Spring Initializr generates, so the published artifact declared no licence
at all - now they say what the LICENSE file says.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Lucio Lelii