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

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

Why Companies Are Choosing Source Available

The Timeline

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

Who Uses BSL

Does It Matter for Self-Hosters?

For Most Users: No

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

When It Does Matter

The Community Response

Forks

When companies changed licenses, the community responded with forks:

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

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.