I'm curious about the license change? This is an executable is it not? Invoking it as a separate process does not require you make the software calling it GPL so switching to MIT should have no affect in the common case.
If the authors really wanted a more permissive license, then instead of relicensing from AGPL to MIT they should have relicensed from AGPL to AGPL with linking exception. An example of a project that is GPL with linking exception is libgit2 [1]. This licensing is more permissive but still permits the author to sell commercial licenses to those making closed-source code changes.
> This licensing is more permissive but still permits the author to sell commercial licenses to those making closed-source code changes.
I think the point is that the authors don't want want to continue selling licenses, as it wasn't worth the hassle. I guess `sold`, the macOS version is an exception.
If selling licenses is a hassle, then that indicates a problem with the open source ecosystem as GitHub and other code hosting websites should offer monetization tools for selling closed-source licenses directly from their web interface. I'm talking legal forms, templates, payment processors, and product tracking. Selling licenses should be easy, not a hassle.
The MPL or the BSL would be a better license. The best would be the MPL with something like Facebook's "700 mil mau" and above requiring a support contract. The Mangas corps benefit the most from mold given the inherent size of their C++ codebases.
If the authors really wanted a more permissive license, then instead of relicensing from AGPL to MIT they should have relicensed from AGPL to AGPL with linking exception. An example of a project that is GPL with linking exception is libgit2 [1]. This licensing is more permissive but still permits the author to sell commercial licenses to those making closed-source code changes.
[1] https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2#license