Open-source licence changes: the chronicle and what operators must do
Editorial note: The information in this article was compiled to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication. Technical details, prices, versions, licensing terms, and external content may change. Please verify the information provided independently, particularly before making business-critical or security-related decisions. This article does not replace individual professional, legal, or tax advice.
Do you know which licence your components carry today? WZ-IT reviews the open-source estate and tracks licence and version states through managed open source and managed operations. Review your estate with us
Since 2018 a series of well-known open-source projects have changed licence, mostly away from a recognised open-source licence toward a model with restrictions. Two have since partly reversed the step; one discontinued its free offering entirely.
That leaves operators in an awkward position: a component that was unproblematic three years ago may now sit under different terms. And because it happens quietly, it is rarely noticed unprompted.
This article assembles the chronicle, states what applies today for each project, and answers the one question that matters to most: does it affect my use at all?
All licence details from the projects' own licence files, as of 1 September 2026.
Table of contents
- The chronicle at a glance
- What the licences mean
- MongoDB 2018
- Elastic 2021 and the reversal
- HashiCorp 2023 and OpenTofu
- Redis 2024 and the reversal
- MinIO 2025 to 2026
- The pattern behind it
- Does it affect your use
- How we approach this at WZ-IT
- Further guides
The chronicle at a glance
| Year | Project | From | To | Fork | Today |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | MongoDB | AGPL | SSPL | none prevailed | SSPL |
| 2021 | Elasticsearch | Apache-2.0 | SSPL and Elastic License | OpenSearch | AGPLv3 available again |
| 2023 | Terraform | MPL-2.0 | BSL 1.1 | OpenTofu | BSL 1.1, licensor IBM |
| 2023 | Vault | MPL-2.0 | BSL 1.1 | OpenBao | BSL 1.1 |
| 2024 | Redis | BSD | SSPL and RSAL | Valkey | AGPLv3 available again |
| 2025/26 | MinIO | AGPL remained | Community Edition discontinued | none | archived |
Two reversals, two changes that stand, one full retreat. The picture is therefore less uniform than the narrative about "the end of open source" suggests.
What the licences mean
The three acronyms at issue differ considerably.
SSPL (Server Side Public License). Requires anyone offering the software as a service to publish the entire source of the service infrastructure. The Open Source Initiative does not recognise SSPL as an open-source licence, because it restricts the field of use.
BSL (Business Source License). Permits use and modification but prohibits providing the software as a competing offering. After a defined period, usually four years per release, the licence converts to a genuine open-source licence. BSL is also not a recognised open-source licence.
AGPLv3. A recognised open-source licence. Requires modifications to be disclosed when the software is provided over a network. For internal use without redistribution this is generally unproblematic.
The decisive difference: AGPLv3 requires disclosure of modifications, SSPL of the entire environment, BSL prohibits a competing offering.
MongoDB 2018
The start of the sequence. MongoDB moved from AGPL to SSPL, arguing that cloud providers offered the database as a service without contributing to development.
No fork prevailed. MongoDB remains under SSPL to this day.
Elastic 2021 and the reversal
Elasticsearch moved in 2021 from Apache-2.0 to a model of SSPL and the Elastic License, on the same reasoning. AWS responded with OpenSearch, a fork under Apache-2.0 that has established itself. How the two differ today we covered in a separate comparison.
The second step is the notable one: Elastic has partly reversed the decision. The licence file today declares a triple licence in which, alongside SSPL and the Elastic License, AGPLv3 is available, that is, a recognised open-source licence.
HashiCorp 2023 and OpenTofu
In 2023 HashiCorp moved Terraform, Vault and other products from MPL-2.0 to BSL 1.1. The response was quick and organised: OpenTofu as a fork of Terraform, OpenBao as a fork of Vault, both under the Linux Foundation.
This is the only change in the sequence that has not been reversed. On the contrary: a look at Terraform's licence file today shows International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) as licensor. IBM's acquisition of HashiCorp has thus reached the licence text itself.
OpenTofu is under MPL-2.0 and actively developed. For Terraform users the switch is technically manageable, because the configuration language is the same.
Redis 2024 and the reversal
Redis moved in March 2024 from BSD to a model of SSPL and RSAL. AWS and Google then founded Valkey as a fork under BSD-3-Clause.
In May 2025 Redis partly reversed the step and added AGPLv3 as a further option. The licence file describes, from Redis 8 onward, a model with three choices: RSALv2, SSPLv1 or AGPLv3.
Redis is therefore under a recognised open-source licence again, if you choose it. Valkey continues to exist and is actively developed.
MinIO 2025 to 2026
The special case in the sequence, because no licence was changed here. MinIO was and remains under AGPL-3.0. What was discontinued instead was the free offering itself: admin console removed from the Community Edition (May 2025), maintenance mode (December 2025), repository archived (April 2026).
That illustrates a variant lost in the licence debate: a project can sit under a free licence and still stop being available. What follows for operators we covered separately.
The pattern behind it
Across six years the same constellation repeats:
- A single company controls the project. Not a foundation, not a broad community.
- A cloud provider sells it as a service without contributing substantially to development.
- Investors expect a return from a product available free of charge.
Where those three coincide, a licence change is likely. Where one is missing, it is not: projects under a foundation or with broad stewardship have not taken this route.
That is not a prediction about individual projects but a screening grid. Anyone running a component to which all three apply should know what the alternative would be, even if nothing needs doing today.
Does it affect your use
For most operators the answer is no, and that gets lost in the excitement.
| Your use | Affected? |
|---|---|
| Internal use, no redistribution | practically never |
| Embedded in your own product and shipped | check, relevant for AGPL and BSL |
| Operated as a service for third parties | check, the core case of all restrictions |
| Resale or white label | check, core case |
Concretely: anyone using Terraform to manage their own infrastructure is unaffected by the BSL. Anyone providing Terraform as part of an offering for customers should have the terms reviewed by a lawyer.
The same applies to AGPL: internal operation without redistribution triggers no disclosure obligation. A service for third parties containing your own modifications does.
We do not provide legal advice on this. What we can contribute is the technical side: which component in which version under which licence is actually running.
How we approach this at WZ-IT
For the environments we operate we maintain a list of components with version and licence. That sounds like bureaucracy and is the precondition for relating an announcement like the MinIO retreat to your own estate at all.
On licence changes we first check whether the specific use is affected, and in most cases we advise doing nothing. Switching without cause costs time and creates risk.
Where we do advise is on abandoned projects. An archived component is a different problem from an inconvenient licence: with a licence you can check whether it interferes, with abandonment the clock is running.
Further guides
- MinIO is archived: alternatives compared - the most recent case in the sequence
- OpenSearch versus Elasticsearch - the 2021 fork today
- Self-hosted PaaS compared - where licence boundaries run on a smaller scale
- Managed operations - ongoing tracking of versions and licences
Unclear which licence position applies to your components? We inventory the estate and say where action is genuinely needed and where it is not. Book a call
Sources
Review licence risk in your own estate
We review which components you run, which licence applies to them today and where action is needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to important questions about this topic
The best-known sequence is MongoDB in 2018, Elastic in 2021, HashiCorp in 2023, Redis in 2024 and MinIO with the retreat of its Community Edition through 2025 and 2026. Elastic and Redis have since partly reversed their decision, HashiCorp has not.
Since Redis 8 a tri-licensing model applies: Redis Source Available License v2, Server Side Public License v1 or the GNU Affero General Public License v3, at your choice. AGPLv3 is the only one of the three recognised by the Open Source Initiative and was added in May 2025.
Also a triple licence: AGPLv3, Server Side Public License v1 or Elastic License 2.0. Parts of the source additionally sit under Apache-2.0-compatible licences. Elastic has thereby partly reversed its 2021 decision.
Terraform has been under the Business Source License 1.1 since 2023. The licence text now names International Business Machines Corporation as licensor, following IBM's acquisition of HashiCorp. BSL is not an open-source licence in the Open Source Initiative's sense.
For internal use, generally not. The restriction targets offering the product as a competing service. Anyone using Terraform only to manage their own infrastructure is unaffected. Anyone offering it to customers as a service should have the terms reviewed.
OpenTofu, the Terraform fork, is under MPL-2.0 and actively developed. Valkey, the Redis fork, is under BSD-3-Clause and likewise. Neither is a fringe project any more; both are viable alternatives with their own communities.
The pattern is stable: a project with a single company behind it, a cloud provider offering it as a service without contributing substantially, and investors expecting a return. Where those three coincide, a licence change is likely.
Through an inventory of the components you run and the question of how you use them. Internal use is almost never affected. It becomes critical when you embed a component in a product or operate it as a service for third parties.
Not as a rule. Switching without cause creates effort and risk. It makes sense when the licence genuinely restricts your use, when the fork clearly has more momentum, or when you are migrating anyway.
Predictions would be speculation. What is checkable is the pattern: a single company with majority control, investors in the background, and a cloud provider selling the same thing as a service. Anyone seeing that in a component they run should at least know what the alternative would be.
Written by
Timo Wevelsiep
Co-Founder & CEO
Co-Founder of WZ-IT. Specialized in cloud infrastructure, open-source platforms and managed services for SMEs and enterprise clients worldwide.
LinkedInLet's Talk About Your Idea
Whether a specific IT challenge or just an idea - we look forward to the exchange. In a brief conversation, we'll evaluate together if and how your project fits with WZ-IT.
Arrange a callback
Companies worldwide trust WZ-IT
