Under what license the have protocol should be released?

The Aave V3 release strategy is being defined by the community with a set of snapshot proposals as described in the V3 introduction thread https://governance.aave.com/t/introducing-aave-v3/6035.

The first proposal discussed here https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-v3-launch-strategy-code-licensing/6316 is related to the code licensing of Aave V3. The discussion was passionate and gravitated around three possibilities:

• Business License: The business license would be implemented in a similar fashion as Uniswap, where the code usage would be restricted for an initial amount of time (tentatively one year) before becoming free. This would likely require some additional legal work and slow down the V3 release process. A legal representative of the DAO must be elected or the DAO needs to be incorporated. Some useful comments by the user Neptune on the topic https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-v3-launch-strategy-code-licensing/6316/55 and https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-v3-launch-strategy-code-licensing/6316/38. The idea around the Business License is that the Aave Governance would keep the rights to authorize code forks even during the initial period with projects and teams that show great collaboration and participation in the Aave Ecosystem.

• MIT: Aave V3 would be released under the MIT license

• (A)GPL: Aave V3 would be released under the (A)GPL license

A comparison between the MIT and AGPL Licenses:

https://www.slant.co/versus/3575/3582/~mit-license_vs_agpl

This vote is essentially a signal on whether or not the Aave community wants to protect its Intellectual Property from unauthorized use, or simply allow anyone to use the code in any way they prefer.