License clarification

[taqtiqa-mark]

Thanks for all your effort on sunscreen. I came across this via the ZK podcast (Anna Rose, et. al.)

There appears to be some ambiguity/confusion, perhaps unless you are a lawyer, around the effect of having a downstream project include a AGPL library, such as the sunscreen AGPL licensed crate.

However, some certain there is no ambiguity:

Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL.

I'm more familiar with the Rust convention of having dual Apache 2/MIT licenses.

If possible could you clarify what the AGPL is intended to prevent, which the dual Apache 2/MIT licenses would allow?

One possibility is to add to each example in the repo the license you say would be permitted if that example were used as described?

In case none of the examples would have to be AGPL, could you give some detail on what use would require a project be AGPL when it uses the sunscreen crate?