Read the license, not the marketing
Open source vs source-available.
"Open source" is doing a lot of work in the AI agent space. Two projects can both call themselves open while granting very different rights. Here's the difference, and why it matters when you self-host.
The distinction
Two license families
MIT · Apache-2.0 · GPL
Approved by the Open Source Initiative. Broad rights to use, modify, and redistribute — including commercially. Examples: CrewAI (MIT), AutoGen.
Elastic 2.0 · BUSL
The code is published and self-hostable, but one or more uses are restricted — typically offering it as a competing hosted service. Kortix (Suna) uses Elastic 2.0.
Why it matters
What the license changes for you
- Self-hosting only? Both families work — you can run the code yourself.
- Fork and redistribute? You need OSI-open (MIT/Apache-2.0); source-available forbids reselling as a competing service.
- Procurement review? Check the license file, not the marketing page — "open" is not a license.
Kortix, honestly: Suna is Elastic License 2.0 — source-available, not OSI-open. You can read, fork, and self-host it; you can't resell it as a competing managed service. If you need OSI-open, weigh CrewAI, AutoGen, OpenWork, or Eigent instead.
FAQ
Common questions
What is the difference between open source and source-available?
OSI licenses permit unrestricted redistribution. Source-available licenses publish the code but restrict one or more uses (typically reselling as a hosted service).
Is Kortix open source?
Kortix (Suna) is source-available under Elastic License 2.0. Read, fork, and self-host it — but don't resell it as a competing hosted service.
Why does the license matter for self-hosting?
Self-hosting works under both. Redistribution requires OSI-open (MIT/Apache-2.0). Check the license file before committing.