Data report
Open-Source License Statistics 2026
This report summarizes the license labels attached to OpenAlt’s live self-hosted software catalog. It shows the leading license families, separates copyleft from permissive labels, and compares the mix across categories.
Repository URLs in the Source CSV are the audit trail for the project labels and examples below. Source-available / proprietary entries are not open-source licenses.
As of Sep 19, 2026, 543 live projects are cataloged; MIT is the largest license family with 155 projects (28.5%; Source CSV).
License families
| License family | Projects | Share | Example projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIT | 155 | 28.5% | |
| AGPL | 144 | 26.5% | |
| GPL | 96 | 17.7% | |
| Apache | 94 | 17.3% | |
| BSD | 13 | 2.4% | |
| Other / custom | 13 | 2.4% | |
| Source-available / proprietary | 8 | 1.5% | |
| Elastic | 5 | 0.9% | |
| MPL | 5 | 0.9% | |
| BUSL / BSL | 4 | 0.7% | |
| LGPL | 4 | 0.7% | |
| EUPL | 2 | 0.4% |
License mix by category
| Category | Total projects | Permissive | Copyleft |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI & LLM Tools | 20 | 14 (70.0%) | 5 (25.0%) |
| Automation & iPaaS | 23 | 15 (65.2%) | 7 (30.4%) |
| BI & Dashboards | 24 | 16 (66.7%) | 7 (29.2%) |
| Blogging & CMS | 24 | 16 (66.7%) | 5 (20.8%) |
| CRM & Sales | 18 | 5 (27.8%) | 11 (61.1%) |
| Databases & Spreadsheets | 27 | 18 (66.7%) | 7 (25.9%) |
| Email & Newsletters | 25 | 8 (32.0%) | 13 (52.0%) |
| Feeds & Read-Later | 25 | 12 (48.0%) | 11 (44.0%) |
| File Storage & Sync | 39 | 18 (46.2%) | 20 (51.3%) |
| Finance & Budgeting | 24 | 10 (41.7%) | 11 (45.8%) |
| Forms & Surveys | 11 | 4 (36.4%) | 7 (63.6%) |
| Helpdesk & Support | 18 | 4 (22.2%) | 11 (61.1%) |
| Media Servers & Streaming | 25 | 7 (28.0%) | 18 (72.0%) |
| Monitoring & Status Pages | 18 | 12 (66.7%) | 5 (27.8%) |
| Notes & Knowledge Base | 39 | 15 (38.5%) | 23 (59.0%) |
| Password Managers & Secrets | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 8 (53.3%) |
| Photo Management | 19 | 8 (42.1%) | 11 (57.9%) |
| Product & Web Analytics | 28 | 14 (50.0%) | 13 (46.4%) |
| Project Management & Kanban | 32 | 13 (40.6%) | 16 (50.0%) |
| Scheduling & Booking | 20 | 9 (45.0%) | 9 (45.0%) |
| Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | 35 | 22 (62.9%) | 11 (31.4%) |
| Team Chat & Collaboration | 34 | 17 (50.0%) | 17 (50.0%) |
Methodology and scope
Counts use the live listings returned for this snapshot. A label is normalized by its leading family name for analysis only; the repository’s original label remains available in the catalog CSV. Repository URLs in that CSV provide the audit trail for checking a project’s current license information.
A repository label is not legal advice. Source-available / proprietary labels are shown separately because they are not open-source licenses, and this page does not make legal determinations about any project.
FAQ
How are the license families normalized?
The report groups repository labels by their leading family name: MIT, Apache, GPL, AGPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, EUPL, Elastic, and BUSL or BSL. Labels that do not match those prefixes remain in Other / custom. Proprietary and ⊘ Proprietary are grouped separately as Source-available / proprietary.
Which licenses count as copyleft here?
This report counts GPL, AGPL, LGPL, and EUPL as copyleft. It counts MIT, Apache, and BSD as permissive. The counts describe the normalized labels in the live catalog and do not evaluate the text of each repository’s license file.
Why is Source-available / proprietary separate from open-source licenses?
Some repositories use a proprietary or source-available label that may permit viewing or limited use without granting the rights associated with an open-source license. They are therefore reported separately and are not counted as open-source licenses in this analysis.
Can this report tell me which license to use?
No. A repository label is a catalog field, not legal advice, and this report does not recommend a license or determine whether a project complies with one. Read the repository’s license text and consult qualified counsel for a decision about your own project.