Skip to main content

The Rise of "Source Available" vs True Open Source

·OSSAlt Team
open-sourcelicensingsource-availableindustry2026

The Rise of "Source Available" vs True Open Source

You can see the code. You can self-host it. But is it open source? The rise of "source available" licenses is blurring the line — and it matters more than you think.

The Spectrum

CategoryCan Read CodeCan ModifyCan DistributeCan CompeteExamples
ProprietarySlack, Notion
Source Available✅ (limited)⚠️ (restrictions)Sentry (BSL), MongoDB (SSPL)
Open Source (copyleft)✅ (share alike)Mattermost (AGPL), Linux (GPL)
Open Source (permissive)React (MIT), Kubernetes (Apache)

What Makes Something "True" Open Source?

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) defines open source through the Open Source Definition. Key requirements:

  1. Free redistribution — Anyone can share it
  2. Source code available — Must include or make available
  3. Derived works allowed — Can modify and distribute modifications
  4. No discrimination — Can't restrict who uses it or for what purpose
  5. No restriction on other software — Can't require that other software also be open

OSI-Approved vs Not

LicenseOSI-ApprovedType
MITOpen Source
Apache-2.0Open Source
GPL-3.0Open Source
AGPL-3.0Open Source
BSL-1.1Source Available
SSPLSource Available
Elastic License 2.0Source Available
Confluent Community LicenseSource Available

Why Companies Are Choosing Source Available

The Timeline

YearCompanyChangeReason
2018MongoDBAGPL → SSPLAWS offering managed MongoDB
2019ElasticApache → SSPL + Elastic LicenseAWS Elasticsearch Service
2021GrafanaApache → AGPLPreemptive protection
2023HashiCorpMPL → BSL"Vendors taking without contributing"
2023SentryBSLSustainable business protection
2024RedisBSD → RSALv2 + SSPLCloud provider competition
2024TerraformBSL(continued from HashiCorp change)

The Pattern

1. Company creates open source tool (MIT/Apache)
2. Tool becomes popular
3. Cloud providers offer managed version
4. Company can't compete with cloud providers' scale
5. Company changes license to restrict cloud providers

The Business Source License (BSL) Explained

BSL is the most common source-available license. Here's how it works:

Years 1-3: Source Available
  - You can read, modify, and self-host
  - You CANNOT offer it as a competing service
  - The "Additional Use Grant" defines what's allowed

Year 4+: Becomes Open Source
  - Automatically converts to Apache-2.0 (or similar)
  - All restrictions lifted

BSL in Practice

What You Can DoWhat You Can't Do
Self-host for your companyOffer a competing managed service
Modify the codeSell hosted access to the software
Contribute patchesBuild a SaaS product using it as core
Use internally (any purpose)Resell as-is

Who Uses BSL

ProjectBSL SinceConverts ToAdditional Grant
SentryLaunchApache-2.0Can use for internal business
CockroachDB2019Apache-2.0Non-commercial use
MariaDB MaxScale2017GPLNon-production use
OutlineRecentApache-2.0Self-hosting for any purpose

Does It Matter for Self-Hosters?

For Most Users: No

If you're self-hosting for your team or company:

QuestionBSL AnswerTrue OSS Answer
Can I self-host?✅ Yes✅ Yes
Can I modify the code?✅ Yes✅ Yes
Can I use for my business?✅ Yes✅ Yes
Can I see the source code?✅ Yes✅ Yes
Is it free?✅ Yes✅ Yes

When It Does Matter

SituationImpact
You want to offer it as a managed service❌ BSL won't allow this
You want to fork and build a competing product❌ BSL won't allow this
You want to embed it in commercial software⚠️ Depends on the Additional Use Grant
You want long-term guarantee of openness⚠️ BSL converts in 3-4 years, but company can change terms
You contribute code⚠️ Your contribution is under BSL, not true OSS

The Community Response

Forks

When companies changed licenses, the community responded with forks:

OriginalLicense ChangeForkFork License
Elasticsearch→ SSPLOpenSearch (AWS)Apache-2.0
Terraform→ BSLOpenTofu (Linux Foundation)MPL-2.0
Redis→ RSALv2 + SSPLValkey (Linux Foundation)BSD-3

Result: The community now has true open source alternatives, but the ecosystem is split.

The Debate

Pro Source Available:

"We gave away our software for free. AWS made billions offering it as a service and contributed nothing back. BSL lets us survive while keeping the code visible."

Pro True Open Source:

"If you benefited from open source community contributions under an open license, changing the license is a betrayal of trust. Fork it."

The Pragmatist:

"I just want to self-host software that works. I don't care about the license as long as I can run it on my server."

How to Evaluate Licenses as a User

Quick Decision Framework

Your Use CaseMIT/ApacheAGPLBSLSSPL
Self-host for team
Modify for internal use
Offer as managed serviceShare modsShare everything
Embed in proprietary productConsult lawyerDepends
Fork and compete✅ (share alike)
Long-term freedom guarantee⚠️ (converts eventually)⚠️

Our Recommendation

  1. Prefer true open source (MIT, Apache, GPL, AGPL) when alternatives exist
  2. BSL is acceptable for self-hosting — it works the same as OSS for most users
  3. Be cautious of SSPL — the restrictions are broad and vague
  4. Always check the license before building on top of a project

The Bottom Line

"Source available" licenses like BSL are a pragmatic response to cloud providers freeloading on open source. For self-hosters, the practical difference is minimal — you can still see the code, modify it, and run it.

But the philosophical difference matters: true open source guarantees your freedom to use software however you want. Source available gives you most of those freedoms with a business-protection carve-out.

When choosing tools for your stack, prioritize true open source where possible. But don't let a BSL license stop you from using a great tool — especially when it converts to open source after 3-4 years.


Check the license of every open source alternative at OSSAlt.