Dear Mika,
Thanks for your interest in contributing. After a multi-week absence of mine I'll try to catch up on all the events that happened, including the mailing list an contributions on GitHub.
I can only second what Bernhard said. AFAIK you can contribute new code licensed as MIT, as it is compatible with AGPL 3.0 and can be re-distributed as the latter, as long as you don't choose any weird MIT-variant ;) If you modify existing code, you have no other choice than accepting the license of course. But you are obliged to publish any modifications anyway if you do that, that's the soul of the AGPL.
On 10/21/21 12:17 PM, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Are there licensing issues/incompatibilities? E.g. my employer wants all our published code to be released under MIT (Expat).
Anything that is compatible with "AGPL-3.0-or-later" is fine. SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT is fine in this regard.
My additional recommendation is to use https://reuse.software/spec/ 3.0 (the current one) to indicate the license and who is the rights holder.
Actually, all contributions must comply to the standard which is automatically checked by a GitHub Action that we have in place.
Sebastian