Reconsider Base's AGPL-3.0-or-later license for broader adoption

[codeforester]

Problem

Base is licensed AGPL-3.0-or-later (since v1.0.1). docs/product-assessment.md
already names this as an explicit adoption tradeoff: it strengthens open-source
reciprocity but is a real deterrent to adoption inside companies with
copyleft-averse license-review processes. That assessment deliberately deferred
reopening the license choice rather than deciding it inline.

Evidence this is a live cost, not a theoretical one

• Of the repository's last ~965 issues and ~982 PRs, only 2 PRs and 0 issues
  come from anyone other than the maintainer. Adoption evidence has stayed
  flat across the 1.6.1 -> 1.8.0 release line despite substantial shipped
  work.
• docs/product-assessment.md repeatedly lists licensing as a positioning/
  sales-friction risk under Adoption Potential without a tracked follow-up
  issue.
• Base is a CLI/workspace tool invoked locally, not a hosted service — the
  network-use clause that motivates AGPL for server software has limited
  relevance here, which weakens the case for AGPL specifically (as opposed to
  a permissive or weak-copyleft license) relative to the adoption cost it
  imposes.

Ask

Evaluate whether AGPL-3.0-or-later is still the right license for Base's
current adoption goals, and decide explicitly rather than by default.

Options to weigh:

• Keep AGPL-3.0-or-later. Preserve strong reciprocity; accept continued
  adoption friction in corporate settings.
• Move to Apache-2.0 or MIT. Remove the most common corporate
  license-review objection; give up copyleft protection.
• Dual-license (e.g., a permissive core with AGPL or a commercial license
  for specific components). More flexible, more to maintain and explain.

Non-goals

• This issue is a decision-and-execution tracker, not a unilateral
  relicensing. The license choice remains the maintainer's call.
• Out of scope: relicensing any dependency or vendored code with its own
  license terms.

Scope if a license change is chosen

• Update LICENSE, license headers/badges, README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md,
  and any docs that reference AGPL (docs/product-assessment.md,
  docs/why-base.md if applicable).
• Confirm whether the license change applies going forward only or requires
  contributor/copyright-holder consent given prior AGPL contributions.

Referenced from a prior product assessment; see docs/product-assessment.md
Adoption Potential section for the original framing of this tradeoff.