Opsly
Licensing
Open source vs source-available
People use these terms as if they mean the same thing. They don't. Here's the difference in plain language, and where Opsly fits.
The short version
Opsly's code is public, and self-hosting is free
You can read every line, run it yourself, change it, and deploy it for your team at no cost. One thing is off-limits: you can't repackage Opsly as a competing product. Two years after each release ships, that restriction expires and the code becomes Apache 2.0. That last part is what "open source" usually guarantees on day one, and it's the line Opsly doesn't cross yet.
Two definitions
What each term actually means
Open source
Source you can see, and a license that meets the Open Source Definition maintained by the OSI. It grants four freedoms with no field-of-use limits: run the software for any purpose, study and change it, share it, and share your changes. MIT, Apache 2.0, and the GPL are open source. "Any purpose" includes competing with the people who wrote it.
Source-available
The source is public, but the license holds something back, usually the right to resell the software as a competing service. You can still read it, run it, and modify it. It just isn't OSI-approved open source, because a restriction on how you use it breaks one of the four freedoms. Opsly's license, the FSL, sits here.
Both give you the source. The difference is whether the license puts any limit on what you're allowed to do with it.
Side by side
What you can do with each
For everyday use they look identical. The rows split apart on exactly one question: can you turn it into a competitor.
| Can you… | Open source (OSI) | Source-available (Opsly, FSL) |
|---|---|---|
| Read the full source | Yes | Yes |
| Run it yourself for free | Yes | Yes |
| Modify it for your own use | Yes | Yes |
| Self-host for your team or business | Yes | Yes |
| Share your modifications | Yes | Yes, for any permitted use |
| Use it to launch a competing product | Yes | No, until it converts |
| Meet the OSI Open Source Definition | Yes | Not yet |
| Become open source over time | Already is | Apache 2.0, two years per release |
The reasoning
Why not fully open source, at least for now
Opsly is built by one person. A permissive open-source license would let a large cloud provider host it, charge for it, and out-market the person writing it, all without contributing back. The FSL blocks that one use and leaves everything else open.
-
You keep the freedoms that matter day to day
Reading, running, modifying, and self-hosting are all permitted, at no cost.
-
The restriction is temporary by design
Each release is on a two-year timer to Apache 2.0, written into the license itself.
-
It's a known, readable license
The FSL is a published standard, not a bespoke legal document you have to decode.
The two-year clock
Every release converts to the Apache License 2.0 exactly two years after it ships. The timer starts on the publish date and runs per release, so there's always a growing body of Opsly that is fully open source with no strings attached.
Apache 2.0 is an OSI-approved license with a patent grant. Once a release converts, the FSL's competing-use restriction no longer applies to it.
In practice
What this means for you
Use, modify, self-host
For any purpose except a Competing Use. Internal business use, non-commercial education and research, and professional services for licensees are all explicitly allowed.
No competing product
You can't use Opsly to build or offer something that substitutes for it or does substantially the same job. That's the single line the license draws.
Becomes Apache 2.0
Two years after a release ships, it converts to the Apache License 2.0 and the competing-use restriction falls away for that release.
Need a commercial license, or unsure whether your use counts as competing? Open a discussion. The full text lives in LICENSE, and the FSL itself is documented at fsl.software.
Still deciding if Opsly fits?
Take the tour to see what it does, or read the source and decide for yourself.