It depends.
At least one of these (`Elastic License 2.0`) is a source-available license, not OSI-approved open source. Combination terms depend on the specific clauses of the source-available license — review the upstream's FAQ and consult a lawyer before redistributing or running as a service.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| GNU Affero GPL v3.0 (AGPL-3.0) | network-copyleft | Yes |
| Elastic License 2.0 (Elastic-2.0) | source-available | No (implicit at most) |
GNU Affero GPL v3.0: GPLv3 plus § 13: providing software over a network triggers the source-disclosure obligation.
Elastic License 2.0: Source-available with restrictions on resale-as-a-service.
If you found this page because you're trying to figure out whether shipping a particular dependency is safe, the answer above is a starting point — not a substitute for reading the actual licenses or talking to a lawyer when stakes are high.
LicenseHound walks every transitive dependency in your repo, maps each to its SPDX license, and flags pairs like this one in PR comments. The CLI is free; the team dashboard is paid.