The repository carried no licence at all, which meant nobody could legally
build on it and the question of what a derivative owes back had no answer.
The AGPL rather than the GPL because this is a web application: under the
GPL, running a modified copy as a hosted service obliges the operator to
publish nothing, and a workflow platform is exactly the kind of thing
someone hosts. Section 13 closes that.
The additional term is the part that carries the intent - section 7(b)
permits requiring that author attributions be preserved in the Appropriate
Legal Notices a work displays, so the attribution has to survive into a
derivative's interface and not merely into a file nobody opens. It is a
permitted additional requirement, not a further restriction, so downstream
cannot strip it.
Academic citation is a request in CITATION.cff, not a licence condition:
no OSI licence can compel a citation, and pretending otherwise would put an
unenforceable clause in a document that needs to be enforceable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
