Forge License Explained

The inspected Original Forge root contains the full GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3, and GitHub labels the repository AGPL-3.0. This page does not apply that label to reForge, Forge Neo, models or extensions.

The inspected root begins “GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3” but has no separate Forge-specific SPDX line clearly selecting the modern `-only` or `-or-later` identifier. The generic application example mentions “or later”; that example is not itself a project-specific choice. Treat the precise variant as UNKNOWN unless the copyright holders clarify it.

The AGPL does not prohibit commercial activity and permits charging for copies and support. Your delivery method still determines source and notice duties, while model, extension, input, output and branding rights remain separate.

The Forge code license does not generally apply to ordinary program output merely because Forge generated it. That does not clear the image: check the model license, LoRA terms, input rights, depicted people or brands, and applicable law.

No general rule in the inspected AGPL text does that. Section 2 says output is covered only when its content constitutes a covered work. Ordinary generated imagery is not automatically Forge source code.

Running an unmodified local copy is expressly permitted. If your organization modifies Forge, distributes copies, crosses entity boundaries or gives users remote network access, the analysis changes; document the facts and obtain legal review.

Section 2 permits making and running covered works you do not convey. A modified remotely interactive version engages section 13, and transferring copies outside the relevant legal entity can engage distribution duties.

Section 13 is written around a modified version. Hosting facts can still involve notices, third-party components, user access and other law, so this page does not issue a blanket compliance clearance for an unmodified service.

All users interacting remotely with that modified version must be prominently offered an opportunity to receive its Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

Section 13 says interaction remotely through a computer network and does not limit itself to the public internet. Whether a particular user and organizational arrangement triggers duties is fact-specific.

A link can be the delivery mechanism only if it is prominent, available to every relevant user, free of charge and points to Corresponding Source for the exact deployed version. A generic upstream repository is not the source of your unpublished modifications.

Do not assume that is sufficient. Corresponding Source is defined as the preferred form for modification and includes source and scripts needed to generate, install and run the object code.

The AGPL permits conveying verbatim copies subject to notice and license conditions. If you distribute non-source form, section 6 source-delivery requirements apply. Linking users to the original GitHub release avoids becoming an unofficial binary mirror.

A covered modified version conveyed to others must follow AGPL terms, and modified network service users receive the section 13 source opportunity. Whether other components form one covered work or a separate aggregate is a legal question this page cannot decide.

Section 4 allows any price or no price for copies and paid support or warranty. Recipients still receive the license rights, and your source and notice obligations remain.

Do not remove required notices. Section 4 requires keeping applicable copyright, license and no-warranty notices intact when conveying verbatim source; modified versions add their own prominent change notices.

The code license does not automatically grant trademark or endorsement rights. Renaming also does not remove AGPL duties or the requirement to state modifications and dates. Review branding separately.

The audited checkout contains 27 files named LICENSE or LICENSE.txt and a UI notice page with seven borrowed-code entries. Several built-ins and packages carry GPL, MIT, Apache or AGPL texts. Inventory the exact files you ship.

No such blanket conclusion follows from the repository license. Those assets are normally obtained separately and carry their own terms or model cards.

No blanket conclusion follows. Each extension is separate code at a separate repository and revision, and may also call an online service or download separately licensed assets.

At the inspected commit, Settings includes a Licenses tab populated from `html/licenses.html`. That page lists borrowed-code notices; it does not replace the root license or every nested LICENSE file.

The source offer should correspond to the version users actually interact with, including your modifications and required build/install/run scripts. Record the full commit rather than only a branch name.

Provide the exact repository commit, distribution artifact, diff, deployment architecture, user groups, source-offer path, dependency and asset inventory, model/extension licenses, contracts, jurisdictions and proposed branding.