A source-available licence is a software licence that lets you view source code but does not grant full open-source rights. It often permits reading, modifying, or using the code under extra restrictions on redistribution, deployment, or commercial use, so it is distinct from an open-source licence.
What Source-Available Licences Are
Source-available licences sit between closed-source and open-source models. They let users inspect source code, but they usually add restrictions that change how the software may be redistributed, deployed, embedded, or monetised. The key distinction is that visibility into source does not automatically mean the full freedoms associated with open-source software.
That distinction matters because the licence, not the repository access, determines what your organisation can legally do with the code. A project may be technically transparent while still imposing limits that affect product packaging, SaaS use, internal redistribution, or derivative works.
How Source-Available Differs From Open Source
Open-source licences are designed around a recognised set of rights and obligations that support broad reuse. Source-available licences intentionally break that model by reserving additional rights to the licensor or by narrowing permitted use cases. In practice, this means the code can be readable and still not be safe to treat as open source in procurement, engineering, or compliance workflows.
The difference is often most visible in redistribution and deployment terms. Some source-available licences are permissive for evaluation or internal study, but restrict hosting the software as a service, reselling it, or shipping it inside another commercial product. That can create business friction even when the code itself is easy to obtain.
Because terminology is still evolving, organisations should read the licence text itself rather than relying on marketing labels such as “open source inspired” or “community edition”. The name of the licence is not a reliable indicator of what rights are actually granted.
Why Source-Available Licences Matter for Software Risk
Source-available licences create a governance and legal risk surface that is easy to miss during development. Engineers may assume source inspection equals open-source reuse, while product teams may assume a visible codebase can be safely incorporated into a commercial offering. Those assumptions can lead to licence breaches, takedown demands, or forced rework late in delivery.
They also affect supply-chain decisions. If a package or platform cannot be reused under the needed terms, it may still be useful for review, but not for production dependency management, distribution, or platform standardisation. That is why source-available software should be assessed as a licence-compliance issue, not just a sourcing preference.
For broader open-source security and compliance context, the Open Source Security Guide and the Open Source Licence Compliance Guide show how licence obligations, SBOM data, and dependency governance fit together in practice.
How Teams Should Evaluate and Use Source-Available Code
Teams should treat source-available software as a licence review item before adoption, not after integration. The practical questions are whether redistribution is allowed, whether commercial use is restricted, whether modified versions can be shipped, and whether deployment in hosted or managed services changes the legal position.
Source-available terms should also be tracked alongside dependency metadata so that procurement, security, and legal reviewers can see the licensing model early. That is especially important when a vendor shifts from permissive licensing to a source-available model, because the technical product may remain familiar while the legal terms materially change.
Clear internal ownership helps here: engineering decides whether the software is technically useful, but legal and procurement decide whether the licence fits the intended business model. When those responsibilities are blurred, source-available code can enter the stack on assumptions that are later hard to unwind.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8 sets the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.31 — Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements | Source-available use hinges on contractual licence obligations. |
| A.5.9 — Inventory of information and other associated assets | Software inventory must capture packages whose licence limits reuse. | |
| Recommendation — Track licence terms as contractual requirements before reuse or distribution. Record source-available components in your asset inventory with their licensing constraints. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-16 — Application Software Security | Software selection and SDLC governance must account for licensing constraints in reused components. |
| Recommendation — Review component licensing during software acquisition and build governance. | ||
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How should security teams review React Native apps when source code is not available?
- Why do transitive dependencies create unexpected open-source license risk in modern software?
- What breaks when teams rely only on package metadata to assess open-source license obligations?
- Who is accountable when an open-source license violation reaches customers or auditors?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Free weekly newsletter
Subscribe to the NHI & AI Identity Journal
The latest on NHI and Agentic AI security – articles, research, breaches, news and events every week.
Bonus 33% off our NHI Course when you subscribe.
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on November 3, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org