Why it's a commitment, not a structural guarantee
Free is a promise I'm making — not one the licence enforces.
32°N is licensed under MIT — one of the most permissive open-source licences in common use.
MIT doesn't legally stop me from building a paid version or restricting how the code can be used.
It keeps the source open; the commitment to "free forever" is mine, personally.
I considered AGPL — a stricter licence that would have legally prevented monetisation via its
SaaS clause. I picked MIT because the protection AGPL gives conflicts with the Apple App Store
distribution model, which matters for reaching most boat owners. The trade was "structural
guarantee against monetisation" vs "App Store reach." I picked reach.
If you don't trust the personal commitment, MIT gives you the escape hatch:
fork the code, run your own copy. MIT permits that explicitly. Same source,
same stack, no permission required.