# Source-available software

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Source-available_software
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Source-available_software.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
> Source revision: 1344995735
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Software licensed to ensure access to source code

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Source-available software" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

**Source-available software** is [software](/source/Software) released through a [source code](/source/Source_code) distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called *[open-source](/source/Open-source_software)*.[1] The licenses associated with the offerings range from allowing code to be viewed for reference to allowing code to be modified and redistributed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.[2]

Some source-available software licenses, classified as *noncompete licenses*, are closed-source software licenses that have been created by modifying an open-source software license to include a restriction that prohibits using the licensed software to compete with the developer.[3] These anti-competitive restrictions create a [vendor lock-in](/source/Vendor_lock-in) effect by steering users toward establishing a separate agreement with the developer for commercial use of the software.[4]

## Distinction from free and open-source software

Any software is *source-available* in the broad sense as long as its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even [compile](/source/Compile) it. It is possible for a software to be both source-available software and [proprietary software](/source/Proprietary_software) (e.g. [id Software](/source/Id_Software)'s *[Doom](/source/Doom_(1993_video_game))*).

In contrast, the definitions of free software and open-source software are much narrower. [Free software](/source/Free_software) and/or [open-source software](/source/Open-source_software) is also always *source-available software*, but not all source-available software is also free software and/or open-source software. This is because the official definitions of those terms require considerable additional rights as to what the user can do with the available source (including, typically, the right to use said software, with attribution, in derived commercial products).[5]

In the broad sense, any FOSS license is a *source-available* license. In the narrow sense,[1] the term *source-available* specifically excludes FOSS software.

## Non-free licenses

The following source-available software licenses are considered [non-free licenses](/source/Proprietary_software) because they have limitations that prevent them from being [open-source](/source/Open-source_license) according to the [Open Source Initiative](/source/Open_Source_Initiative) and [free](/source/Free_software_license) to the [Free Software Foundation](/source/Free_Software_Foundation).

### Commons Clause

The Commons Clause, created by Fossa, Inc., is an [addendum](/source/Addendum) to an [open-source software](/source/Open-source_software) license that restricts users from selling the software. Under the combined license, the software is source-available, but not open-source.[6][7]

On 22 August 2018, [Redis Labs](/source/Redis_Labs) shifted some [Redis](/source/Redis) Modules from the [GNU Affero General Public License](/source/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License)[8][9] to a combination of the [Apache License](/source/Apache_License) 2.0 and the Commons Clause.[7][10]

In September 2018, [Matthew Garrett](/source/Matthew_Garrett) criticized Commons Clause calling it an "older way of doing things" and said it "doesn't help the [commons](/source/Commons)".[11]

### Business Source License

Further information: [Business Source License](/source/Business_Source_License)

Business Source License has been introduced by [MariaDB Corporation](/source/MariaDB_Corporation) in 2016 and rapidly became one of the most adopted "delayed open source" licenses.[12] It prohibits use of the code in production environments, where a commercial license is required.[13]

### Functional Source License

Functional Source License has been introduced in November 2023 by Sentry, as a simpler alternative to Business Source License.[14] It prohibits any "competing" use of the code, to preserve the rights of the author to economically exploit it, but applies for a limited time, after which the code itself is considered to be available under [Apache License](/source/Apache_License) or [MIT License](/source/MIT_License).[15]

### GitLab Enterprise Edition License (EE License)

The GitLab Enterprise Edition License is used exclusively by [GitLab](/source/GitLab)'s commercial offering.[16] GitLab Inc. openly discloses that the EE License makes their Enterprise Edition product "proprietary, closed source code."[17] GitLab also releases an open-source Community Edition under the [MIT License](/source/MIT_License).[18] This makes GitLab an example of an [open core](/source/Open_core) company.

### Mega Limited Code Review Licence

Further information: [Mega (service) § History](/source/Mega_(service)#History)

In 2016, Mega Ltd. released the [source code](/source/Source_code) of their [Mega](/source/Mega_(service)) clients under the Mega Limited Code Review Licence, which only permits usage of the code "for the purposes of review and commentary".[19] The source code was released before former director [Kim Dotcom](/source/Kim_Dotcom) stated that he would "create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit" following his departure from Mega Ltd.[20][21]

### Microsoft Shared Source Initiative

Further information: [Shared Source Initiative § Restricted licenses](/source/Shared_Source_Initiative#Restricted_licenses)

Microsoft's [Shared Source Initiative](/source/Shared_Source_Initiative), launched in May 2001, comprises 5 licenses, 2 of which are [open-source](/source/Open-source_license) and 3 of which are restricted. The restricted licenses under this scheme are the Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL),[22] the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL),[23] and the Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL).[24]

### Old Scilab License

Further information: [Scilab § License](/source/Scilab#License)

Prior to version 5, [Scilab](/source/Scilab) described itself as "the open source platform for [numerical computation](/source/Numerical_analysis)"[25] but had a license[26] that forbade commercial redistribution of modified versions. Versions 5 and later are distributed under the [GPL](/source/GNU_General_Public_License)-compatible [CeCILL](/source/CeCILL) license.

### Server Side Public License

Further information: [Server Side Public License](/source/Server_Side_Public_License)

The [Server Side Public License](/source/Server_Side_Public_License) is a modification of the [GNU Affero General Public License](/source/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License) created by the [MongoDB](/source/MongoDB) project. It modifies a clause relating to usage of the licensed work over a network, stating that if SSPL-licensed software is incorporated into a "service" offered to other users, the source code for the entirety of the service (including without limitation all software and APIs that would be required for a user to run an instance of the service themselves) must be released under the SSPL.[27] The license is considered non-free by the [Open Source Initiative](/source/Open_Source_Initiative), [Debian](/source/Debian) and [Red Hat](/source/Red_Hat), as it contains conditions that are unduly discriminatory towards commercial use of the software.[28][29]

### Open Compensation Token License

The Open Compensation Token License[30] is commercial source-available software license. The key idea is to keep software extendable by everyone and to combine this with fair payment. Commercial uses of the software require commercial licensing and the funds are distributed via technical means to the contributors. The German company iunera[31] created the license during a project to optimize public transport usage.[32] The license works by registering source code artifacts as code tokens on the blockchain. Every developer who builds on prior software needs to register the dependencies that he or she uses via the blockchain. This ensures that the prior labor by other developers is acknowledged. Commercial applications require an obtaining a license via the blockchain. The license cost is computed as a percentage of the invested work hours. Licensing funds are distributed based on the dependencies to the code token owners via blockchain. Anyone who extends source code which is licensed with the Open Compensation Token License is required to use the same license. The license webpage[33] is explicitly stating it is non [Open Source](/source/Open_Source).

### SugarCRM Public License

Further information: [SugarCRM § License](/source/SugarCRM#License)

In 2007 [Michael Tiemann](/source/Michael_Tiemann), president of OSI, had criticized[34] companies such as [SugarCRM](/source/SugarCRM) for promoting their software as "open source" when in fact it did not have an OSI-approved license. In SugarCRM's case, it was because the software is so-called "[badgeware](/source/Badgeware)"[35] since it specified a "badge" that must be displayed in the user interface. SugarCRM's open source version was re-licensed under the GPL version 3 in 2007,[36] and later the [GNU Affero GPL](/source/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License) version 3 in 2010.[37]

### TrueCrypt License

Further information: [TrueCrypt § License and source model](/source/TrueCrypt#License_and_source_model)

The TrueCrypt License was used by the [TrueCrypt](/source/TrueCrypt) [disk encryption](/source/Disk_encryption) [utility](/source/Utility_software).[38] When TrueCrypt was discontinued, the [VeraCrypt](/source/VeraCrypt) [fork](/source/Fork_(software_development)) switched to the [Apache License](/source/Apache_License), but retained the TrueCrypt License for code inherited from TrueCrypt.[39]

The [Open Source Initiative](/source/Open_Source_Initiative) rejects the TrueCrypt License, as "it has elements incompatible with the [OSD](/source/Open_Source_Definition)."[40] The [Free Software Foundation](/source/Free_Software_Foundation) criticizes the license for restricting who can execute the program, and for enforcing a trademark condition.[41]

### BeeGFS End User License Agreement

BeeGFS EULA is the license of the distributed parallel file system BeeGFS, except the client for Linux, which is licensed under [GPLv2](/source/GPLv2).[42]

BeeGFS source code is publicly available from their website,[43] and because of this they claim that BeeGFS as "Open-Source" software;[44] it is in fact not because this license prohibits distributing modified versions of the software, or using certain features of the software without authorization.[45]

## See also

- [Free and open-source software portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_and_open-source_software)

- [Comparison of free and open-source software licenses](/source/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses)

- [Free software](/source/Free_software)

- [Free-software license](/source/Free-software_license)

- [List of commercial video games with available source code](/source/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code)

- [List of proprietary source-available software](/source/List_of_proprietary_source-available_software)

- [List of source-available video games](/source/List_of_open-source_video_games#Source-available_games)

- [Open-core model](/source/Open-core_model)

- [Open-source license](/source/Open-source_license)

- [Open-source software](/source/Open-source_software)

- [Openwashing](/source/Openwashing)

- [Shared Source Initiative](/source/Shared_Source_Initiative)

## References

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-dod_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-dod_1-1) ["DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ: Is there a name for software whose source code is publicly available, but does not meet the definition of open source software?"](https://web.archive.org/web/20180724032116/https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/). *Chief Information Officer*. U.S. Department of Defense. Archived from [the original](https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/) on 24 July 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Fortunato-2021_2-0)** [Laura Fortunato](/source/Laura_Fortunato_(academic)); [Mark Galassi](/source/Mark_Galassi) (29 March 2021). ["The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship"](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1836982). *[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A](/source/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society_A)*. **379** (2197): 7–8, 10. [Bibcode](/source/Bibcode_(identifier)):[2021RSPTA.37900079F](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RSPTA.37900079F). [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1098/RSTA.2020.0079](https://doi.org/10.1098%2FRSTA.2020.0079). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [1364-503X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1364-503X). [OSTI](/source/OSTI_(identifier)) [1836982](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1836982). [PMID](/source/PMID_(identifier)) [33775148](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33775148). [Wikidata](/source/WDQ_(identifier)) [Q111919147](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q111919147). Retrieved 5 February 2026 – via [OSTI](/source/OSTI).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Riehle-2023_3-0)** Riehle, Dirk (16 November 2023). ["The Future of the Open Source Definition"](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10319889). *[Computer](/source/Computer_(magazine))*. Vol. 56, no. 12. pp. 95–99. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1109/MC.2023.3311648](https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMC.2023.3311648). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [1558-0814](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1558-0814). Retrieved 5 February 2026.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Kshetri-2025_4-0)** Kshetri, Nir (8 January 2025). ["Economics of Open Source Software and AI Models"](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10834152). *[Computer](/source/Computer_(magazine))*. Vol. 58, no. 1. pp. 134–141. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1109/MC.2024.3488974](https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMC.2024.3488974). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [1558-0814](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1558-0814). Retrieved 5 February 2026.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-5)** ["The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative"](https://opensource.org/osd). *opensource.org*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Kabakoff-2019_6-0)** Kabakoff, Stephen E.; Petrella, Nicholas D. (November–December 2019). ["Why Open Source Licenses with a Commons Clause May Become Less Common"](https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/why-open-source-licenses-with-a-commons-clause-may-become-less-common.html). *Landslide*. Vol. 12, no. 2. [American Bar Association](/source/American_Bar_Association). Retrieved 5 February 2026 – via [Finnegan](/source/Finnegan%2C_Henderson%2C_Farabow%2C_Garrett_%26_Dunner).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Commons_Clause_License_7-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Commons_Clause_License_7-1) ["Commons Clause License"](https://commonsclause.com/). *Commons Clause License*. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-8)** Shoolman, Yiftach (5 July 2016). ["Why Redis Labs' Modules are AGPL"](https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl/). *Redis Labs*. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-9)** Claburn, Thomas. ["Redis has a license to kill: Open-source database maker takes some code proprietary"](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/23/redis_database_license_change/). *The Register*. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-10)** Asay, Matt. ["Why Redis Labs made a huge mistake when it changed its open source licensing strategy"](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-redis-labs-made-a-huge-mistake-when-it-changed-its-open-source-licensing-strategy/). *TechRepublic*. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-11)** [The Commons Clause doesn't help the commons](https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/51177.html) Matthew Garrett's blog

1. **[^](#cite_ref-12)** ["Delayed Open Source Publication"](https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication). *Open Source Initiative*. Retrieved 25 February 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-13)** ["Adopting and Developing BSL Software"](https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/). *MariaDB*. Retrieved 25 February 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-14)** ["Introducing the Functional Source License: Freedom without Free-riding"](https://blog.sentry.io/introducing-the-functional-source-license-freedom-without-free-riding/). *Sentry's blog*. 17 November 2023. Retrieved 25 February 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-15)** ["FSL - Functional Source License"](https://fsl.software/). *Functional Source License*. Retrieved 25 February 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-EE_License_16-0)** ["The GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) license (the "EE License")"](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE). *GitLab*. GitLab Inc. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-GitLab_blog_July_2016_17-0)** Sijbrandij, Sid (20 July 2016). ["GitLab is open core, GitHub is closed source"](https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-github-is-closed-source/). *GitLab*. GitLab Inc. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-CE_License_18-0)** ["GitLab Community Edition LICENSE file"](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE). *GitLab*. GitLab Inc. 15 May 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-19)** ["meganz/MEGAsync"](https://github.com/meganz/MEGAsync/blob/master/LICENCE.md). *GitHub*. 7 September 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-20)** ["Interviews: Kim Dotcom Answers Your Questions - Slashdot"](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/27/200204/interviews-kim-dotcom-answers-your-questions). *yro.slashdot.org*. 30 July 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-21)** ["Kim Dotcom promises to launch an open-source competitor to Mega (updated)"](https://www.engadget.com/2015/07/31/kim-dotcom-new-site-mega/). *Engadget*. 31 July 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-22)** ["Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL)"](http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedpubliclicense.mspx). *[Microsoft](/source/Microsoft)*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-23)** ["Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL)"](http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedreciprocallicense.mspx). *[Microsoft](/source/Microsoft)*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-reference_24-0)** ["Microsoft Reference Source License"](http://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html). Microsoft. 6 July 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2016. *"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read-only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.*

1. **[^](#cite_ref-25)** ["The open source platform for numerical computation"](http://www.scilab.org). [INRIA](/source/Institut_national_de_recherche_en_informatique_et_en_automatique). Retrieved 4 January 2008.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-26)** ["SCILAB License"](https://web.archive.org/web/20051212214843/http://www.scilab.org/legal/license.html). INRIA. Archived from [the original](http://www.scilab.org/legal/license.html) on 12 December 2005. Retrieved 4 January 2008.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-27)** Staff, Ars (16 October 2019). ["In 2019, multiple open source companies changed course—is it the right move?"](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/is-the-software-world-taking-too-much-from-the-open-source-community/). *Ars Technica*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-28)** Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. ["MongoDB "open-source" Server Side Public License rejected"](https://www.zdnet.com/article/mongodb-open-source-server-side-public-license-rejected/). *ZDNet*. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20190116202120/https://www.zdnet.com/article/mongodb-open-source-server-side-public-license-rejected/) from the original on 16 January 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2019.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-29)** ["MongoDB's licensing changes led Red Hat to drop the database from the latest version of its server OS"](https://www.geekwire.com/2019/mongodbs-licensing-changes-led-red-hat-drop-database-latest-version-server-os/). *GeekWire*. 16 January 2019. [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20190117035708/https://www.geekwire.com/2019/mongodbs-licensing-changes-led-red-hat-drop-database-latest-version-server-os/) from the original on 17 January 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2019.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-30)** ["OCT License Text Repository"](https://github.com/open-compensation-token-license/license). *[GitHub](/source/GitHub)*. Retrieved 24 March 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-31)** ["How NFTs and AI can solve Public Transport challenges"](https://www.iunera.com/kraken/big-data-examples/how-nfts-and-ai-can-solve-public-transport-challenges/). *iunera company blog*. 24 March 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-32)** ["Künstliche Intelligenz basierte Belegungsoptimierung im ÖPNV – Fahrbar20"](https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/DG/mfund-projekte/fahrbar20.html/). *German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport*. 24 March 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-33)** ["OCT License Project Website"](https://www.license-token.com/). Retrieved 24 March 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-34)** [Tiemann, Michael](/source/Michael_Tiemann) (21 June 2007). ["Will The Real Open Source CRM Please Stand Up?"](http://www.opensource.org/node/163). [Open Source Initiative](/source/Open_Source_Initiative). Retrieved 4 January 2008.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-35)** Berlind, David (21 November 2006). ["Are SugarCRM, Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and others abusing the term "open source?""](https://web.archive.org/web/20080101010337/http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430). [ZDNet](/source/ZDNet). Archived from [the original](https://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430) on 1 January 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2008.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-36)** [Vance, Ashlee](/source/Ashlee_Vance) (25 July 2007). ["SugarCRM trades badgeware for GPL 3"](http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/07/25/sugarcrm_gpl3/). The Register. Retrieved 8 September 2008.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-:2_37-0)** OSI Board of Directors (19 January 2021). ["The SSPL is Not an Open Source License"](https://opensource.org/node/1099). [Open Source Initiative](/source/Open_Source_Initiative). Retrieved 23 January 2021.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-truecrypt-archive_38-0)** ["truecrypt-archive/License-v3.1.txt at master · DrWhax/truecrypt-archive"](https://github.com/DrWhax/truecrypt-archive/blob/master/doc/License-v3.1.txt). *GitHub*. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-VeraCrypt_license_39-0)** ["root/License.txt"](https://www.veracrypt.fr/code/VeraCrypt/tree/License.txt?h=VeraCrypt_1.19). *VeraCrypt*. TrueCrypt Foundation. 17 October 2016. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Phipps_40-0)** [Phipps, Simon](/source/Simon_Phipps_(programmer)) (15 November 2013), [*TrueCrypt or false? Would-be open source project must clean up its act*](http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or-false-would-be-open-source-project-must-clean-its-act-230862), [InfoWorld](/source/InfoWorld), retrieved 20 May 2014

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FSFLicenseList_41-0)** ["Various Licenses and Comments about Them"](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). *GNU Operating System*. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-42)** ["BeeGFS End User License Agreement - Documentation - BeeGFS"](https://www.beegfs.io/content/documentation/#eula). *BeeGFS*. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-43)** ["GitLab"](https://www.beegfs.io/source). *BeeGFS*. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-44)** ["Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)"](https://www.beegfs.io/wiki/FAQ#open_source). *BeeGFS Wiki*. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-45)** ["End-User License Agreement"](https://www.beegfs.io/docs/BeeGFS_EULA.txt) (plain text). 10 September 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2021.

v t e Software distribution Licenses Beerware Floating licensing Free and open-source Free Open source Freely redistributable License-free Proprietary Public domain Source-available Compensation models Adware Commercial software Retail software Crippleware Crowdfunding Freemium Freeware Pay what you want Careware Donationware Open-core model Postcardware Shareware Nagware Trialware Delivery methods Digital distribution File sharing On-premises Pre-installed Product bundling Retail software Sneakernet Software as a service Deceptive and/or illicit Unwanted software bundling Malware Infostealer Ransomware Spyware Trojan horse Worm Scareware Shovelware Software release life cycle Abandonware Long-term support Software maintenance Software maintainer Software publisher Vaporware list Copy protection Digital rights management Software protection dongle License manager Product activation Product key Software copyright Software license server Software patent Torrent poisoning

v t e Free and open-source software General Alternative terms for free software Comparison of open-source and closed-source software Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities Free software Free software project directories Long-term support Open-source software Open-source software development Outline Timeline Software packages Audio Bioinformatics Codecs Configuration management Drivers Graphics Wireless Health Mathematics Office suites Operating systems Routing Television Video games Web applications E-commerce Android apps iOS apps Commercial Formerly proprietary Formerly open-source Community Free software movement History Open-source-software movement Events Advocacy Organisations Free Software Movement of India Free Software Foundation Licenses AFL Apache APSL Artistic Beerware BSD Creative Commons CDDL EPL Free Software Foundation GNU GPL GNU AGPL GNU LGPL ISC MIT MPL Python Python Software Foundation License Shared Source Initiative Sleepycat Unlicense WTFPL zlib Types and standards Comparison of licenses Contributor License Agreement Copyleft Debian Free Software Guidelines Definition of Free Cultural Works Free license The Free Software Definition The Open Source Definition Open-source license Permissive software license Public domain Challenges Digital rights management License proliferation Mozilla software rebranding Proprietary device drivers Proprietary firmware Proprietary software SCO/Linux controversies Software patents Software security Tivoization Trusted Computing Related topics Forking GNU Manifesto Microsoft Open Specification Promise Open-core model Open-source hardware Shared Source Initiative Source-available software The Cathedral and the Bazaar Revolution OS Portal Category

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Source-available software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.