Let me preface by saying that this seems like a great piece of software and it is absolutely within your right to license it as whatever you would like, no matter what any of the commenters here think.
However, I don't believe your understanding of AGPL is accurate.
> No, my understanding is that if you don't make any changes to the Cozo code, you don't need to release anything to the public. If you do, and you cannot release your non-Cozo code, then you must dynamically link to the library (and release your changes to the Cozo code). The Python, NodeJS and Java/Clojure libraries all use dynamic linking.
This sounds like you're thinking of the LGPL, not AGPL. Whereas LGPL is less strict than GPL because the exception you describe above applies. AGPL on the other hand is more strict. Essentially, if you use any AGPL code to provide a service to users then you must also make the source code available, even if the software itself is never delivered to users.
The intention here is that you can't get around GPL by hiding any use of the GPL code behind a server, so it makes perfect sense to use it for a database. But I don't think it does what you want.
Whichever way you decide to go, be it AGPL, LGPL or something else, I encourage you to make a choice before accepting any outside contributions. As soon as you have code from other authors without a CLA you will need to obtain their permission to change the license (with some exceptions).
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just interested in licenses.)
It seems that I really did misunderstand the differences.
It is now under LGPL. The repo still requires CLA for contribution for the moment until I am really sure.
> The repo still requires CLA for contribution for the moment until I am really sure.
I just wanted to mention that this sounds like a great idea for a new project. Stay behind a CLA, for a while, just in case the initial license turned out to be an issue.
Maybe I was confused about the case of using an executable vs linking against a library. Let me double-check with a few friends who understand copyright laws better than me. If everything checks out, the next release will be under LGPL.
About CLA: at the previous suggestion of a friend, the repo was locked with CLA requirement currently (even though nobody outside contributed yet). This will be lifted once the situation becomes clearer.
However, I don't believe your understanding of AGPL is accurate.
> No, my understanding is that if you don't make any changes to the Cozo code, you don't need to release anything to the public. If you do, and you cannot release your non-Cozo code, then you must dynamically link to the library (and release your changes to the Cozo code). The Python, NodeJS and Java/Clojure libraries all use dynamic linking.
This sounds like you're thinking of the LGPL, not AGPL. Whereas LGPL is less strict than GPL because the exception you describe above applies. AGPL on the other hand is more strict. Essentially, if you use any AGPL code to provide a service to users then you must also make the source code available, even if the software itself is never delivered to users.
The intention here is that you can't get around GPL by hiding any use of the GPL code behind a server, so it makes perfect sense to use it for a database. But I don't think it does what you want.
Whichever way you decide to go, be it AGPL, LGPL or something else, I encourage you to make a choice before accepting any outside contributions. As soon as you have code from other authors without a CLA you will need to obtain their permission to change the license (with some exceptions).
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just interested in licenses.)