Licensing policy

Which applications we sell, which we decline, and why the difference is not a technicality.

In short

We only sell managed hosting for software whose licence permits it. Applications under permissive or copyleft open-source licences qualify. Source-available licences that restrict providing the software to third parties for a fee do not — which is why we publish a guide for n8n and Typebot instead of an order button.

Hosting companies rarely publish this. The reason we do is that it is the single clearest signal of whether a provider will still be selling the same product in two years. A licence breach does not end in a fine; it ends in the software being pulled, and the migration lands on the customer.

The three categories

  • Permissive — MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD. Commercial hosting is explicitly allowed. Most of our catalogue sits here.
  • Copyleft — AGPL-3.0 and similar. Hosting is allowed with obligations around modified source. We deploy upstream builds unmodified, which keeps us on the right side of it.
  • Source-available — Sustainable Use License, FSL, BSL. These look open but restrict exactly what a hosting company does. We do not sell them.

Applications we decline to sell

n8n ships under the Sustainable Use License, which permits internal business use and non-commercial use but restricts providing the software to others for a fee. Several hosting companies sell it anyway; some may hold agreements they do not publish. Neither is a defence we can rely on, so we abstain until we can answer the question with a document. The n8n guide stays online because it is useful.

Typebot ships under FSL-1.1, whose Competing Use definition covers managed hosting directly. Its page was written and then deleted.

What we recommend instead

  • Activepieces — Open automation with hundreds of integrations — and no execution quota.
  • Windmill — Turn scripts into workflows, schedules and internal apps.
  • Node-RED — Wire events, devices and APIs together on a canvas.
  • Kestra — Declarative orchestration for data and AI pipelines.

Conditions we honour on applications we do sell

  • Dify — Apache-2.0 with additional conditions: no multi-tenant service and no removal of branding. Every instance is single-tenant and the branding stays.
  • Open WebUI — branding may not be removed above a 50-user threshold without an agreement, so we ship it as published.
  • Flowise — no licence issue, but a security one: never deployed below 3.0.6, which fixes a critical remote code execution advisory.

Full catalogue position

ApplicationUpstream licenceOur position
ActivepiecesMIT (community edition)Sold as managed hosting
AnythingLLMMITSold as managed hosting
ArgillaApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
BotpressMIT (open-source runtime)Sold as managed hosting
Browser UseMITSold as managed hosting
ChatwootMIT (community edition)Sold as managed hosting
ChromaApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
ComfyUIGPL-3.0Not yet offered — capacity
Crawl4AIApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
DifyApache-2.0 with additional conditionsSold as managed hosting
FlowiseApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
HermesModel weights under their own terms; server MITSold as managed hosting
HuginnMITSold as managed hosting
InvokeAIApache-2.0Not yet offered — capacity
JupyterBSD-3-ClauseSold as managed hosting
JupyterHubBSD-3-ClauseSold as managed hosting
KestraApache-2.0 (community edition)Sold as managed hosting
KhojAGPL-3.0Sold as managed hosting
KoboldCppAGPL-3.0Sold as managed hosting
Label StudioApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
LangflowMITSold as managed hosting
LangfuseMIT (core)Sold as managed hosting
LettaApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
LibreChatMITSold as managed hosting
LiteLLMMITSold as managed hosting
llama.cppMITSold as managed hosting
LobeChatApache-2.0 (with branding terms)Sold as managed hosting
LocalAIMITSold as managed hosting
MCP GatewayMITSold as managed hosting
MeilisearchMITSold as managed hosting
MilvusApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
MLflowApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
n8nSustainable Use License (source-available)Not sold — licence restriction
Node-REDApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
OllamaMITSold as managed hosting
OnyxMIT (core)Sold as managed hosting
Open WebUIOpen WebUI License (BSD-3 with branding clause)Sold as managed hosting
OpenClawMITSold as managed hosting
OpenHandsMITSold as managed hosting
OpikApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
PerplexicaMITSold as managed hosting
Piper TTSMITSold as managed hosting
Postgres + pgvectorPostgreSQL LicenseSold as managed hosting
QdrantApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
QuivrApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
RAGFlowApache-2.0Sold as managed hosting
RasaApache-2.0 (open source edition)Sold as managed hosting
SearXNGAGPL-3.0Sold as managed hosting
SillyTavernAGPL-3.0Sold as managed hosting
Stable Diffusion WebUIAGPL-3.0Not yet offered — capacity
SupergatewayMITSold as managed hosting
Text Generation WebUIAGPL-3.0Sold as managed hosting
VerbaBSD-3-ClauseSold as managed hosting
vLLMApache-2.0Not yet offered — capacity
WeaviateBSD-3-ClauseSold as managed hosting
WhisperMITSold as managed hosting
WindmillAGPL-3.0 (community edition)Sold as managed hosting

This page describes our commercial policy. It is not legal advice, and licence texts change — where a project’s terms are ambiguous we ask the maintainers rather than assume.

Questions

Licensing questions

Is open source the same as free to resell?
No, and the difference is the whole point of this page. Permissive licences such as MIT and Apache-2.0 allow commercial hosting. Copyleft licences such as AGPL-3.0 allow it with source obligations we meet by shipping the software unmodified. Source-available licences such as the Sustainable Use License or FSL specifically restrict it.
Why does it matter to me as a customer?
Because a provider selling software it has no right to sell is a provider whose product can disappear. Licence disputes end in takedowns and migrations, and the migration is yours to perform, not theirs.
Do you modify the applications?
No. We deploy upstream releases with configuration, not patched forks. Branding stays as the project published it — which is also what several of these licences require.
What about Typebot?
Typebot ships under FSL-1.1, whose Competing Use clause explicitly covers managed hosting. We wrote the page and then removed it, because selling it would be a breach.

Host what we can host properly

Everything in the catalogue is there because its licence allows it.