Is n8n really open source? The n8n fair-code license and 2026 self-hosting math
Search “n8n open source” and you will find plenty of posts treating the answer as an automatic yes. The repository is public and you can read every line of it, but public visibility is not the same thing as an open-source license. That distinction stops being academic the moment you sell what you build, host it for a client, or plan an exit.
Why trust this breakdown: This is built from n8n’s official documentation, the Sustainable Use License text on GitHub, faircode.io’s definition of fair-code, the Activepieces license file, and the current pricing pages for n8n, Activepieces, and Make. Each factual claim below links to its source, and this page was last verified 2026-10-09.
Everything that follows is based on official documentation, license files and pricing pages — we did not run the tools hands-on. One light note up front: this is our reading of the license text, not legal advice.
Is n8n really open source? The short answer
No. n8n’s source code ships under the Sustainable Use License v1.0, which n8n authored in 2022 and labels fair-code rather than open source. It is source-available and it is not approved by the Open Source Initiative. That gap changes what you may sell, host, and hand to clients.
The repository itself is readable and forkable on GitHub, which is what trips people up — visibility looks like freedom until you read the grant. n8n’s own documentation answers the question plainly, calling the product fair-code and pointing to the license text rather than claiming open-source status Source. The full terms live in the repository as the Sustainable Use License v1.0 Source.
The “fair-code” label is not marketing froth. It is a defined category with its own site, and the fair-code initiative behind it lists n8n’s CEO Jan Oberhauser as a founding contact Source. So the answer to “is n8n open source” is: the source is available, the license is not open source, and the difference decides whether your automation business is compliant.
What “fair-code” actually means (and what it isn’t)
Fair-code means source-available software that is free to use internally but commercially restricted by its authors, and the initiative behind it is led by n8n’s CEO. The Sustainable Use License grants broad rights, then narrows them with three specific limitations that determine whether your use stays free or requires a paid license.
Fair-code sits between “proprietary” and “open source.” Under the fair-code definition, the code is public, you may use it freely for your own purposes, and the authors reserve the right to restrict commercial exploitation Source. An OSI-approved license has no such reservation: it permits anyone to use, modify, and redistribute for any purpose, including inside a paid product. The Activepieces core is distributed under MIT Expat, which is OSI-approved and explicitly permits sublicensing and selling Source. n8n’s Sustainable Use License does not qualify for that category Source.
Here is the grant in plain terms. The SUL gives you a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, distribute, make available, and prepare derivative works of the software Source. Then the license applies three limitations:
- You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes, or for non-commercial and personal use.
- You may distribute or provide it to others only free of charge, and only for non-commercial purposes.
- You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing or copyright notices included with the software.
Those three sentences set the boundary. Internal use is generous; passing the software to someone else is where the door closes.
What you can legally do with self-hosted n8n (the part most guides get wrong)
Self-hosting n8n Community is free with no execution ceiling beyond your own hardware, and building client workflows on your own instance is permitted when clients only receive outputs. You may charge consulting or development fees for that work, and there is no cap on how many clients you serve this way.
The Community edition you download and run yourself costs nothing and is not throttled by n8n — execution limits are bound only by the hardware you point it at Source. That is an unusual deal among automation platforms, and it is the reason so many agencies default to it.
The consulting picture is where most guides go stale. You may build and run client workflows on your own instance and charge consulting or development fees, provided the clients receive outputs only and never get access to the n8n editor itself Source. There is no limit on the number of clients, and the 2022 license explicitly lifted the earlier restriction on charging consulting and support fees Source. In practice: the client gets a webhook, a report, or a finished document — not a login.
The test is access, not invoicing. As long as the person paying you cannot open the editor and start dragging nodes, you are inside the free grant.
Where the SUL draws the line: when you need a paid license
The Sustainable Use License stops at client access, not at client count or revenue. Four situations require a commercial n8n license: hosting n8n as a service where clients build workflows, letting external users build workflows through your own product, forking the code into a competing product, or white-labeling it. Enterprise-only files are a separate carve-out.
You need a commercial or Enterprise license if any of these applies Source:
- You host n8n as a service and let clients build workflows in it.
- You let external end users build or configure their own workflows through your product — via a custom UI, the n8n API, MCP, or an AI agent acting on their behalf.
- You fork n8n’s code to launch your own automation product.
- You white-label n8n, presenting it under your own brand as though it were yours.
Note what is absent from that list: a maximum number of clients, a revenue threshold, or a ban on earning money from automations. The deciding factor is client access, not client count or revenue.
Separately, there is a file-level carve-out. Any file whose name or directory contains .ee. is not covered by the Sustainable Use License at all — those files require a valid n8n Enterprise License Source. You can run Community without them; you cannot ship them under the free grant.
n8n pricing in 2026: the cost math per execution
n8n Cloud bills monthly on annual contracts and meters everything by full execution, with each run counting once no matter how many steps it contains. The self-hosted Business plan carries a published overage rate, and its license key reports production execution counts back to n8n every day.
| Plan | Price (annual billing, monthly) | Executions included | Overage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | €20/mo | 2,500 | — |
| Pro | €50/mo | 10,000 | — |
| Business | €667/mo | 40,000 | €4,000 per 300,000 executions |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom |
Three things to note under that table. First, n8n bills per full execution — one workflow run counts as one execution regardless of how many steps fire inside it, which is a materially different meter from per-step billing Source. Second, Business is self-hosted only, so the €667 tier buys a license key rather than cloud hosting Source. Third, that Business or Enterprise license key must ping n8n’s license server daily to stay active, and the ping reports production execution counts Source.
That third point matters if lock-in and telemetry are on your radar. A self-hosted deployment that requires a daily outbound call to the vendor’s license server to remain licensed is self-hosted with a condition attached — you control the workflow data, but your entitlement is verified remotely and your production volume is reported. Budget €4,000 per extra 300,000 executions on Business if you overrun Source.
Activepieces vs. Make: what a genuinely open-source (and a fully proprietary) alternative costs
Activepieces ships its core under the MIT license, which is genuinely open source and lets you resell what you build, while Make is fully proprietary with no self-host option at all. Each meters differently, and that difference shapes real monthly cost more than the headline price does.
| Tool | License | Self-host | Metering model | Client-workflow legality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n8n Community | Sustainable Use License v1.0 (fair-code, not OSI) | Yes, free, no execution limits | per execution | Yes if clients get outputs only |
| n8n Cloud | SUL + cloud ToS | No | per execution | Same outputs-only rule |
| Activepieces (core) | MIT Expat (OSI-approved) | Yes | per credit | MIT: unrestricted, including sublicensing and selling |
| Activepieces Cloud | cloud ToS | No | per credit | Vendor ToS |
| Make.com | proprietary | No | per credit (each module action = 1 credit) | Vendor ToS |
Everything outside packages/ee/ in the Activepieces repository is MIT Expat — OSI-approved, and permissive enough that you can embed it, sublicense it, or sell a product built on it Source. Its cloud tiers run from a free plan with 1,000 credits per month for up to 5 users, to Plus at $20/mo for 10,000 credits with overage at $0.007 per credit, to Team at $200/mo for 50,000 credits and 25 users, with Ultimate custom and embedding from $36k/year Source.
Make is proprietary, credit-metered, and offers no self-host option at all Source. Its free tier gives 1,000 credits per month but only 2 active scenarios with a 15-minute minimum interval between runs; Core is $12/mo, Pro is $21/mo, and Teams is $38/mo, each for 10,000 credits, with Enterprise custom Source. Crucially, every module action costs 1 credit, so a single scenario run that touches six modules burns six credits Source — whereas n8n charges one execution for a run with six steps or sixty Source. Compare cost per outcome, not cost per advertised unit.
Which option fits your situation: a decision framework
Match the tool to how much control you need over the data, the code, and your exit path. If you must own everything and resell it, MIT wins. If execution volume is predictable and operational simplicity matters most, n8n or Make may suit you better despite the trade-offs below.
- You run automations only for your own business. Self-hosted n8n Community is hard to beat: free, no execution limits, no per-step metering Source. Your cost is the server and your time.
- You deliver automations to clients as a service. Stay on n8n Community with outputs-only delivery and charge consulting fees — there is no client-count ceiling Source. Re-read the four triggers above the moment a client asks to log in themselves.
- You want to package and sell an automation product. MIT is the safe harbor. Activepieces’ core permits sublicensing and selling outright Source; shipping a white-labeled n8n or exposing its editor to your users requires a commercial license Source.
- Lock-in is your primary fear. Weigh three exits: n8n Community keeps your data but sits under a fair-code grant with a
.ee.carve-out Source; Activepieces gives you an OSI-approved core you can fork freely; Make gives you no self-hosted exit at all Source. - You would rather pay than operate servers. Compare on real workload shape: n8n per full execution Source, Activepieces and Make per credit, with Make charging one credit per module action Source.
FAQ
Three questions come up every time a team weighs self-hosting n8n against a hosted rival. We answer them directly from the license text and the current pricing pages, keeping each answer short so you can skim them and move on to the decision framework above.
Is the n8n Sustainable Use License OSI-approved open source?
No. The Sustainable Use License v1.0 is a fair-code license authored by n8n in 2022, and fair-code is defined as source-available software that is free for internal use but commercially restricted by its authors Source. It is not on the Open Source Initiative’s approved list, and n8n’s own documentation describes the product as fair-code rather than open source Source.
Can I charge clients for automations I build on self-hosted n8n?
Yes. You may build and run client workflows on your own instance and charge consulting or development fees, provided clients receive outputs only and never access the n8n editor, and there is no limit on the number of clients Source. The 2022 license explicitly removed the earlier restriction on charging consulting and support fees Source. You need a commercial license only when clients themselves get access to build workflows.
Is Activepieces cheaper than n8n and Make in 2026?
It depends on your meter, not just your plan. Activepieces Cloud starts free at 1,000 credits for up to 5 users and moves to $20/mo for 10,000 credits Source, while Make starts at $12/mo for 10,000 credits but spends 1 credit per module action Source, and n8n’s cheapest paid tier is €20/mo for 2,500 full executions Source. Self-hosted n8n Community and self-hosted Activepieces both cost nothing in license fees, so for high-volume internal use the free tiers usually win.
The bottom line
n8n is powerful and cheap to self-host, but it is fair-code, not open source, so your freedom ends where client access begins. Choose it for internal automation, Activepieces when you need to resell what you build, and Make when you would rather pay monthly than operate infrastructure.
📖 Related Reads
- ToolBrain — tool reviews, LLM comparisons, and AI workflow guides
- NiteAgent — AI agent development, frameworks, and production patterns
Cross-links automatically generated from NoCode Insider.