Navigating Open Source Licenses - A Commercial Developer’s Guide to Legal Code Reuse

by Tanya 0 Comments Open Source Licenses Commercial Software Github Projects Mit License Enterprise Software Web Development

Open Source Licenses: A Multi-Dimensional Comparison and Commercial-Friendly GitHub Projects

Introduction

Navigating open source licenses can be complex, especially when commercial use is involved. This guide breaks down popular licenses, compares their terms, and highlights top GitHub projects safe for commercial use.

Common Open Source Licenses

1. MIT License

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: Can be closed-source
  • Patent Grants: Not explicit
  • Attribution: Required
  • Key Feature: Simplest “use anywhere” license.

2. Apache 2.0

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: Can be closed-source
  • Patent Grants: Explicit protection
  • Attribution: Required + change notices
  • Key Feature: Patent safety net for contributors.

3. GPL Family (GPLv2/GPLv3)

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: Must be open-sourced
  • Patent Grants: GPLv3 includes patent clauses
  • Copyleft: Strong (derivative works inherit GPL)
  • Key Feature: Ensures code freedom at the cost of flexibility.

4. LGPL

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: Closed-source allowed if dynamically linked
  • Copyleft: Weak (applies only to the library itself)
  • Key Use Case: Library-focused flexibility.

5. BSD 2/3-Clause

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: Can be closed-source
  • Attribution: Required (BSD 3 adds “no endorsement” clause)
  • Key Feature: Minimal restrictions.

6. AGPL

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Network Use: Triggers open-source requirements
  • Key Use Case: SaaS applications must open-source modified code.

7. MPL 2.0

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: File-level copyleft (changes to MPL files must be open)
  • Key Feature: Balances permissive and copyleft terms.

8. Unlicense/CC0

  • Commercial Use: Allowed
  • Modifications: No restrictions
  • Key Feature: Public domain dedication.

License Comparison Table

LicenseCommercial UseClosed-Source ModificationsPatent ClausesAttributionCopyleft Scope
MIT✅✅❌✅None
Apache 2.0✅✅✅✅File-level
GPLv3✅❌✅✅Strong (entire work)
LGPL✅✅*❌✅Weak (library only)
BSD 3-Clause✅✅❌✅None
AGPL✅❌✅✅Strong + Network
MPL 2.0✅✅**✅✅File-level

_* If dynamically linked
** Except modified MPL-licensed files

Top Commercial-Friendly GitHub Projects

  1. Vue.js (MIT)
  • Stars: 216k+
  • Use Case: Progressive JavaScript framework.
  • Why Commercial?: No restrictions on SaaS or proprietary apps.
  1. React (MIT)
  • Stars: 218k+
  • Note: Former patent clause removed in 2017.
  1. TensorFlow (Apache 2.0)
  • Stars: 181k+
  • Commercial Advantage: Explicit patent protection for AI/ML projects.
  1. VS Code (MIT)
  • Stars: 153k+
  • Key Point: Microsoft’s editor is fully open-source but has proprietary extensions.
  1. Kubernetes (Apache 2.0)
  • Stars: 103k+
  • Enterprise Fit: Cloud-native orchestration with patent safety.
  1. FastAPI (MIT)
  • Stars: 68k+
  • Perk: Build commercial APIs without licensing concerns.
  1. Redis (BSD 3-Clause)
  • Stars: 64k+
  • Why BSD?: Permissive for embedded use in proprietary systems.

Top Enterprise-Read GitHub Projects

Enterprise Management

  1. Odoo (LGPLv3)
  • ERP/CRM system with 3000+ modules
  • Commercial Use: Allowed (core is open-source, paid enterprise modules exist)
  1. ERPNext (GPLv3)
  • Full-stack ERP for SMEs
  • SaaS providers must open-source modifications (GPL compliance required)
  1. Metabase (AGPLv3)
  • Business intelligence dashboard
  • SaaS deployments require open-sourcing modifications
  1. Taiga (AGPLv3)
  • Project management platform
  • Self-hosted commercial use permitted
  1. SuiteCRM (AGPLv3)
  • Salesforce alternative
  • Requires attribution in web interface

Web Development

  1. WordPress (GPLv2+)
  • CMS powering 43% of websites
  • Themes/plugins may have separate licenses
  1. Strapi (MIT)
  • Headless CMS
  • Enterprise edition available with additional features
  1. Directus (GPLv3)
  • Data platform for SQL databases
  • Cloud version under proprietary license
  1. Ghost (MIT)
  • Publishing platform
  • Commercial hosting service available
  1. Medusa (MIT)
  • E-commerce backend
  • No restrictions on storefront implementations

Development Tools

  1. PostHog (MIT)
  • Product analytics
  • Self-hosted version fully open-source
  1. NocoDB (AGPLv3)
  • Airtable alternative
  • SaaS providers must open-source modifications
  1. Appsmith (Apache 2.0)
  • Low-code internal tool builder
  • Explicit patent grant
  1. ToolJet (GPLv3)
  • Open-source Retool alternative
  • Hosted service requires compliance
  1. Supabase (Apache 2.0)
  • Firebase alternative
  • Enterprise-grade features in hosted plan

Infrastructure

  1. MinIO (AGPLv3)
  • S3-compatible object storage
  • Commercial licenses available for proprietary integrations
  1. Ceph (LGPLv2.1)
  • Distributed storage system
  • Dynamic linking allows proprietary integrations
  1. Traefik (MIT)
  • Cloud-native edge router
  • Commercial support available
  1. Harbor (Apache 2.0)
  • CNCF-graduated registry
  • Used by enterprises like JD.com
  1. Keycloak (Apache 2.0)
  • Identity and access management
  • Red Hat provides enterprise support

Critical Compliance Considerations

  1. Dual Licensing: Projects like Elasticsearch (SSPL) and MongoDB (SSPL) require careful review for SaaS use cases
  2. SaaS Implications: AGPL/SSPL may trigger open-source requirements for network services
  3. Dependency Chains: Use tools like FOSSA or SCA to audit licenses recursively
  4. Trademark Policies: Many projects (e.g., Kubernetes) prohibit using their logos without permission

Version-Specific Risks

  • MySQL: Oracle’s commercial license applies to OEM distributions
  • Docker: Docker Desktop requires paid licenses for large enterprises (>250 employees)
  • Redis: Commons Clause controversy in 2018 (current core remains BSD-3)

Avoid “Open Core” Traps

While Elasticsearch (SSPL) and MongoDB (SSPL) are popular, their licenses require SaaS providers to open-source entire service code. Prefer alternatives like:

  • OpenSearch (Apache 2.0)
  • PostgreSQL (PostgreSQL License)

Choosing a License

  • For maximum freedom: MIT/BSD/Apache
  • For community reciprocity: GPL/AGPL
  • For file-level control: MPL 2.0

Always audit dependencies with tools like FOSSA or Black Duck!

License Verification and Updates

All license descriptions and comparisons in this article are based on official documentation as of October 2023:

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. License terms may change, and project policies vary. Always consult legal professionals before adopting open-source software in commercial environments.

SUBSCRIBE FREE PROMOTIONS

🔒 No spam. Unsubscribe any time.

About Tanya

Tanya

Tanya is a professional editor and writer with a passion for transforming ideas into compelling narratives..

» More about Tanya