Which automation tools are actually open source in 2026? n8n, Activepieces, Windmill and Node-RED compared
The question “is this automation tool open source?” has no single answer in 2026, because the label now covers three separate questions that vendors blur together. First comes the source license: what the published repository actually permits. Second comes the directory carve-out: which folders, files, or build flags sit outside that license and belong to a proprietary tier. Third comes the shipped binary: whether the Docker image or release artifact you download contains only licensed source, or also non-public code. A tool can pass the first test and fail the last two.
That gap is where the money lives. A tool that looks free on GitHub can require a paid tier the moment you need SSO, audit logs, or Git version control — and it can quietly prohibit the one business model you had in mind, like reselling hosted automation. This guide reads the license files, documentation, and pricing pages for n8n, Activepieces, Windmill, and Node-RED and tells you exactly where each boundary sits.
This guide is based on the tools’ official license files, documentation, and pricing pages read on October 28, 2026 — we did not run any of these tools hands-on.
How This Guide Was Built
Every claim here traces to a document we fetched and read on October 28, 2026: the LICENSE files in each tool’s GitHub repository, the hosting and edition documentation, and the public pricing pages. Where we quote license language, we quote it verbatim; where we summarize, we link the primary source inline so you can verify it. We did not install, benchmark, or run any of these tools, so nothing here reflects hands-on performance or reliability experience. Limits: pricing changes, and enterprise contracts are negotiated, so treat listed figures as of the read date.
Why “Open Source” Means Three Different Things
“Open source” is a defined term, not a marketing mood. The Open Source Definition at opensource.org/osd requires, among other things, no discrimination against fields of endeavor and freedom to redistribute — including for commercial gain. Applied to automation tooling, that gives you a ladder: Apache-2.0 (broadest, with an explicit patent grant) > MIT core (permissive, attribution only) > AGPLv3 source (permissive to use, but network copyleft on modifications) > SUL (no commercial redistribution) > proprietary binary extras (not open source at all). Every rung you drop narrows a business option and usually introduces a paid unlock.
Node-RED: Apache 2.0 with no carve-outs
Node-RED is the cleanest case in this comparison. Its source repository LICENSE is a full Apache License 2.0 file carrying “Copyright OpenJS Foundation and other contributors” (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/node-red/node-red/master/LICENSE), including the patent grant while explicitly not granting trademark rights. It is stewarded by the OpenJS Foundation and sponsored by FlowFuse, with past sponsors IBM and Hitachi, and the community library at flows.nodered.org offers over 5,000 Nodes and Flows. Because you host the runtime, there is no vendor execution metering — the money consequence is hosting cost, not licensing cost.
Activepieces: MIT Expat core with an ee/ directory
Activepieces publishes its source repository under MIT Expat for everything outside two locations: content under packages/ee/ and packages/server/api/src/app/ee (if present) is licensed under a separate packages/ee/LICENSE, while everything else carries the standard MIT Expat use/copy/modify/merge/publish/distribute/sell terms with attribution (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/activepieces/activepieces/main/LICENSE). The license text is at opensource.org/license/mit. Their own FAQ frames it plainly: “Self-hosting decides where Activepieces runs, not what it can do. Community Edition is the automation core on its own” (https://www.activepieces.com/pricing). The practical consequence: the automation core is genuinely yours, and the paid tiers are where team-scale features and support live.
Windmill: AGPLv3 source, Apache 2.0 clients, proprietary Community Edition image
Windmill is the most layered of the four. Per its LICENSE (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/windmill-labs/windmill/main/LICENSE), backend/ is AGPLv3 except snippets under the compile flag “enterprise”; frontend/ is AGPLv3 except code requiring a positive license check; and python-client/, deno-client/, go-client, powershell-client/ and the OpenFlow spec are Apache 2.0. Windmill states that “The binary compilable from source code in this repository without the ‘enterprise’ feature flag is open-source under the AGPLv3 License terms and conditions.” But the “Community Edition” Docker image and GitHub binary releases also contain proprietary, non-public code — a fact GitHub surfaces as “License and 2 other licenses found” (https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill). Build from source and you get AGPLv3; pull the image and you get more, under different rules.
n8n: Sustainable Use License, fair-code, plus an .ee carve-out
n8n’s repository LICENSE (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/n8n-io/n8n/master/LICENSE.md) is the Sustainable Use License v1.0 combined with fair-code, and the operative limitation is one sentence: “You may use or modify the software only for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.” Two structural details matter. Branches other than master are not licensed, and any source file containing “.ee.” in the filename or “.ee” in a dirname is not under SUL and requires an n8n Enterprise license under LICENSE_EE.md; third-party components keep their own licenses. You must keep licensing notices, add a prominent notice if you modify the code, and a violation terminates the license automatically — though reinstated retroactively if cured within 30 days of notice. Read our deeper breakdown at n8n fair-code license explained. The money consequence: internal use stays free, commercial hosting for others does not.
License Comparison at a Glance
| Tool | Source license | Carved-out directories | Shipped binary/image | OSI open source? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node-RED | Apache 2.0 | None | Matches source | Yes |
| Activepieces | MIT Expat | packages/ee/, packages/server/api/src/app/ee |
Core matches; EE dirs proprietary | Core: yes |
| Windmill | AGPLv3 (backend/frontend) + Apache 2.0 clients | “enterprise” compile flag; license-check frontend code | CE image contains proprietary non-public code | Source: yes; CE image: no |
| n8n | SUL v1.0 + fair-code | .ee. files, .ee dirs; non-master branches |
Community edition under SUL | No — fails OSD |
The Permission Ladder and What Each Rung Costs
The ladder — Apache-2.0 > MIT core > AGPLv3 source > SUL > proprietary binary extras — is easiest to see as permissions you either have or buy back.
| Permission | Node-RED | Activepieces | Windmill source | n8n SUL | Windmill CE image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal commercial use | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Modify and keep private | Yes | Yes | Yes (AGPLv3 network copyleft on service) | Yes | No |
| Redistribute | Yes, incl. commercial | Yes, incl. commercial | Yes under AGPLv3 | Free of charge, non-commercial only | As-is only |
| Sell / resell | Yes | Yes | Yes under AGPLv3 | No | No |
| Offer as managed service | Yes | Yes | Yes under AGPLv3 | No | Explicitly restricted |
| Embed in a commercial product | Yes | Yes, respecting ee/ split | Yes under AGPLv3 | No | No |
SUL sits near the bottom because it fails the Open Source Definition outright: it prohibits commercial redistribution and limits use by field of endeavor, both of which opensource.org/osd forbids. Windmill’s CE image sits below its own source because the image adds restrictions the AGPLv3 source does not carry.
Can You Resell or Offer These as a Managed Service?
Node-RED and Activepieces let you host automation for customers under Apache 2.0 and MIT Expat respectively — you keep the license notices, and you may distribute, sublicense, and sell. Windmill’s AGPLv3 source also permits commercial hosting, but its Community Edition grant does not: free redistribution is allowed “as-is” “but not to sell, resell, serve as a managed service, modify or wrap under any form without an explicit agreement.” White-labelling or building a commercial product on it needs a commercial license; internal use and API use as-is need none. n8n’s SUL prohibits providing the software to others except free of charge for non-commercial purposes, so paid managed hosting requires n8n’s commercial terms. If managed service is your model, the cheapest path is Node-RED or Activepieces; the most expensive is n8n.
What the Free Self-Hosted Editions Include
| Tool | Included | Not included / gated | Paid unlock path |
|---|---|---|---|
| Node-RED | Full Apache 2.0 runtime, community library | Nothing licensing-gated | Your own hosting |
| Activepieces (Community) | Automation core; unlimited flows; hosting location your choice | Access control, teams, safe shipping, support per FAQ | Cloud tiers from $0 (1,000 credits/mo) to Plus $20/mo (10,000 credits, $0.007/credit overage) |
| Windmill (free tier) | Unlimited executions, 3 workspaces, max 50 users (SSO capped at 10 users), 4 groups, Docker/K8s/Fargate self-host, Discord support | Audit logs, SAML group sync, commercial licence, priority support | Enterprise from $120/mo; seats $20/builder, $10/non-builder |
| n8n (Community) | Almost the complete feature set, no license key, queue mode, logging, self-hosting | Custom variables, environments, external secrets, external binary storage, log streaming, multi-main, projects, SSO (SAML/LDAP), sharing beyond owner + creator, Git version control | n8n Cloud Starter €20/mo (2.5K executions), Pro €50/mo (10K), Business €667/mo (40K, self-hosted) |
n8n’s Free Registered Community tier (email license key) adds folders, editor debugging, and custom execution data. Note n8n’s billing unit: one whole workflow execution regardless of step count, with overage listed as “Capped” on Starter and Pro. For hosting walkthroughs, see self-host n8n on a VPS with Docker and self-host Activepieces with Docker, plus our n8n vs Activepieces self-host comparison.
Where Each Vendor Puts Its Paid Gates
| Tool | Gated features | Starting paid tier for self-host | Billing model |
|---|---|---|---|
| n8n | SSO (SAML/LDAP), projects, environments, external secrets, Git version control, log streaming, multi-main, custom variables, external binary storage | Business €667/mo (self-hosted only, 40K executions) | Per execution (whole workflow = 1) |
| Activepieces | Access control, teams, safe shipping, support | Team $200/mo (50,000 credits, 25 users, SSO); Cloud Plus $20/mo | Monthly credits; Plus overage $0.007/credit |
| Windmill | Audit logs, S3-backed distributed dependency cache, SAML with group sync, uncapped SSO, commercial licence, 3h priority support | Enterprise from $120/mo | Seats ($20 builder / $10 non-builder) + compute ($50/worker/mo in calculator) |
| Node-RED | None licensing-gated | $0 | Your hosting |
Windmill adds a resilience note worth weighing in an exit audit: license keys keep working offline, and “If Windmill shuts down, license keys will be extended indefinitely” (https://windmill.dev/pricing). See our platform exit audit guide for how to test exportability before you commit.
How Closed SaaS Tools Differ
Zapier, Make, and Power Automate are closed hosted services: your relationship with them is a subscription contract, not a source license. There is no repository to audit, no binary to verify against source, and no self-host option — the three-layer test in this article collapses into layer zero. That is not an indictment of their product quality; it is a lock-in fact. Your recourse at contract end is data export, not a fork. That is precisely why the license layer matters for the four tools above: it is the difference between a vendor you can leave and a runtime you can keep.
How to Pick the Right Tool
Permissive foundation, maximum freedom: Node-RED. Apache 2.0, OpenJS Foundation stewardship, over 5,000 community nodes, no vendor execution metering. If your concern is being able to sell, fork, or embed without a legal review, this is the least encumbered option.
Product embedding or commercial resale: Activepieces, if you stay outside packages/ee/. MIT Expat lets you distribute and sell; just keep attribution and respect the EE split. Budget for Team at $200/mo once you need SSO and 25 users.
Internal automation with network-copyleft comfort: Windmill built from source under AGPLv3, giving you unlimited executions on the free tier with self-hosting on Docker, Kubernetes, or Fargate. Avoid the CE image if you modify and serve, or buy Enterprise from $120/mo for the commercial licence and audit logs.
Internal automation, deep ecosystem, no resale intent: n8n Community, which includes almost the complete feature set. Accept that SUL forbids commercial redistribution, that .ee files require an Enterprise license, and that SSO, projects, environments, external secrets, Git version control, and log streaming are paid.
FAQ
Is n8n open source?
No. n8n’s Sustainable Use License, read at its LICENSE.md, restricts use to internal business, non-commercial, or personal purposes and permits distribution only free of charge for non-commercial purposes. Field-of-use limits and the ban on commercial redistribution both fail the Open Source Definition, and .ee files sit outside SUL entirely.
Can I self-host these for free internally?
Yes, for all four. Node-RED under Apache 2.0; Activepieces Community with unlimited flows; Windmill’s free tier with unlimited executions and self-hosting on Docker, Kubernetes, or Fargate; and n8n Community, which includes almost the complete feature set. The catch is which enterprise features you can live without — SSO, audit logs, Git version control.
Can I resell Windmill’s Community Edition?
No. Windmill permits free redistribution as-is “but not to sell, resell, serve as a managed service, modify or wrap under any form without an explicit agreement.” Commercial hosting or white-labelling requires a commercial licence, available with Enterprise from $120/mo. Its AGPLv3 source carries different, more permissive terms.
What is the difference between Windmill’s AGPLv3 source and its Community Edition image?
Windmill’s repository backend and frontend are AGPLv3 minus enterprise-flagged and license-check code, with clients and the OpenFlow spec under Apache 2.0. The Community Edition Docker image and GitHub binary releases additionally contain proprietary, non-public code, so the image is not purely open source — a distinction GitHub reflects in its license detection.
Which of these tools has no paid feature gates?
Node-RED. Its entire codebase is Apache 2.0 under OpenJS Foundation copyright, with no vendor execution metering, no edition split, and no proprietary directories. Your only cost is hosting the runtime yourself on Node.js, Docker, a Raspberry Pi, or the cloud. Every other tool here gates at least some features behind paid tiers.
The Bottom Line
For a permissive, foundation-stewarded foundation with no licensing traps, choose Node-RED. For a MIT Expat core you can legally build a commercial product on, choose Activepieces — mind the packages/ee/ boundary. For unlimited executions and true self-hosting with a copyleft trade-off, choose Windmill’s AGPLv3 source, and never assume the Community Edition image is purely open source. For internal-only automation with the richest self-hosted feature set, choose n8n Community — just never resell it, and expect to pay when SSO, projects, environments, external secrets, Git version control, or log streaming become non-negotiable. The cheapest tool today is the one whose license already permits what you’ll need in two years.
📖 Related Reads
- ToolBrain — tool reviews, LLM comparisons, and AI workflow guides
- CodeIntel Log — code quality, debugging, and software engineering benchmarks
Cross-links automatically generated from NoCode Insider.