.png)
Frameworks, core principles and top case studies for SaaS pricing, learnt and refined over 28+ years of SaaS-monetization experience.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Choosing the right license for your open source SaaS project is a critical decision that can significantly impact your business model, community engagement, and legal obligations. The AGPL (Affero General Public License) and MIT license represent two fundamentally different philosophies in the open source world, and understanding their implications is essential before making this important choice. Let's explore what each license offers, their key differences, and how to determine which one aligns best with your SaaS company's goals.
Understanding Open Source Licenses: The Basics
Open source licenses provide the legal framework that governs how others can use, modify, and distribute your software. Before diving into specific licenses, it's important to understand the basic spectrum of open source licensing.
Permissive licenses (like MIT) impose minimal restrictions on users, allowing them almost unlimited freedom to use your code in their own projects, even proprietary ones.
Copyleft licenses (like AGPL) require that derivative works maintain the same license, ensuring that modifications remain open source.
The license you choose will fundamentally shape how your code can be used by others and what obligations users have toward your original work.
The MIT License: Maximum Freedom and Flexibility
The MIT license is one of the most popular permissive licenses in the open source world. Here's why many SaaS founders choose it:
Key Features of MIT Licensing
- Simplicity: The license is remarkably short and easy to understand, even for non-lawyers.
- Permissive usage: Users can modify, distribute, and even use your code in proprietary applications.
- Limited liability: Includes clear disclaimers that protect you from liability.
- Commercial friendly: Allows commercial use of your software without requiring users to open-source their modifications.
Advantages for SaaS Companies
- Broader adoption: The permissive nature often leads to faster and wider adoption of your software.
- Ecosystem building: Makes it easier for others to build commercial products on top of your technology.
- Corporate-friendly: Many enterprises prefer MIT-licensed software due to fewer compliance concerns.
According to GitHub's 2022 State of the Octoverse report, MIT continues to be the most widely used open source license, accounting for over 30% of licensed repositories.
The AGPL License: Protecting Openness in the Cloud Era
The Affero General Public License (AGPL) was specifically designed to address the "SaaS loophole" in traditional GPL licenses. It's a strong copyleft license with unique provisions for network-delivered software.
Key Features of AGPL Licensing
- Network protection: Requires that anyone who modifies and runs the software as a service must make their modified source code available.
- Viral nature: Derivative works must also be licensed under AGPL.
- Strong copyleft: Ensures modifications remain in the open source community.
- User rights: Guarantees end users can access the source code of the service they're using.
Advantages for SaaS Companies
- Prevents proprietary forks: Competitors can't take your code, improve it, and offer it as a closed-source service.
- Community reciprocity: Ensures that improvements made by others benefit the entire community.
- Open source ethos: Strongly aligns with the philosophical foundations of the open source movement.
MongoDB and Elastic are notable examples of companies that switched from more permissive licenses to AGPL-like licenses to protect their business models from cloud providers offering their software as a service.
Key Differences: AGPL vs. MIT for SaaS Applications
When deciding between these licenses for your SaaS product, consider these critical differences:
1. Business Model Compatibility
MIT: More compatible with traditional venture-backed SaaS models where your competitive advantage might come from proprietary extensions, superior execution, or services around the core product.
AGPL: Better suited for open-core models where you offer an open source version under AGPL and proprietary extensions under commercial licenses.
2. Community and Contributor Relations
MIT: May attract more contributors as it gives them maximum freedom to use their contributions in any way.
AGPL: Tends to attract contributors who strongly believe in open source values and want to ensure their work remains freely available.
3. SaaS Licensing Compliance Considerations
MIT: Minimal compliance overhead; essentially just requires maintaining copyright notices.
AGPL: Requires significant compliance efforts, including making source code available to users of your service and ensuring proper attribution.
4. Competitive Protection
MIT: Provides no protection against competitors using your code to compete against you.
AGPL: Makes it difficult for competitors to use your code without also open-sourcing their modifications.
Making Your Decision: Strategic Questions to Consider
To determine which license is right for your open source SaaS project, ask yourself:
- What is your primary goal with open-sourcing?
- Maximum adoption → MIT
- Ensuring contributions remain free and open → AGPL
- Who are your target users and contributors?
- Enterprise users with legal departments cautious about copyleft → MIT
- Open source enthusiasts and developers who value software freedom → AGPL
- What is your monetization strategy?
- Services, support, and proprietary extensions → MIT may be easier
- Open-core with commercial licensing for additional features → AGPL provides better protection
- How concerned are you about competitors?
- Highly concerned about cloud providers offering your software → AGPL
- More focused on building community than preventing competition → MIT
Real-World Examples and Outcomes
Companies Using MIT License
HashiCorp initially open-sourced tools like Terraform under the MIT license, focusing on widespread adoption. They monetize through enterprise features and cloud services.
Vercel licenses Next.js under MIT, which has helped it become one of the most popular React frameworks while building their commercial hosting platform.
Companies Using AGPL License
MongoDB switched to AGPL to prevent cloud providers from offering MongoDB as a service without contributing back. This led to their successful open-core business model.
Nextcloud uses AGPL to ensure that all improvements to their file sharing platform remain available to the community.
Conclusion: There's No Universal Right Answer
The choice between AGPL and MIT licensing for your open source SaaS comes down to your specific business goals, philosophical outlook, and competitive landscape. Both licenses have proven successful for different companies with different strategies.
If you prioritize maximum adoption, community growth, and simplicity, MIT may be your best choice. If you want to ensure that all improvements to your software remain open source and prevent competitors from creating proprietary services with your code, AGPL provides stronger protection.
Remember that licensing decisions can have long-term implications for your business, so consider consulting with a legal expert familiar with open source licensing before making your final choice. Whichever path you choose, clear communication with your community about your licensing rationale will help build trust and understanding around your decision.