[License-discuss] Dify "Open Source" License

[Shuji Sado]

Hi,

They can base a new license on Apache-2.0, but per the ASF's reuse policy
the result is not the Apache License; the modified license text/name should
avoid implying "Apache License + extra terms" and instead make clear that
it differs from the original. Dify's current wording ("licensed under
Apache 2.0, with additional conditions") risks that confusion.


2025/10/15 22:03 Moming Duan <duanmoming at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> In addition to its conflict with the OSD, I am also concerned that this
> license directly violates the reuse policy of the Apache License 2.0 (
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license), which
> states that:
>
> This means that the terms 'Apache License', 'Apache', and any similar
> references to the ASF cannot appear in your modified license, other than to
> state that it differs from the original.  Also, you cannot use 'Apache' in
> the name of the modified license. Names like "Apache License with
> such-and-such clause", for example, are not acceptable, as they cause
> confusion.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> Moming
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2025, at 17:21, Shuji Sado <shujisado at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’ve reviewed the Dify license.
>
> It includes terms that effectively prohibit offering the software as SaaS,
> which I believe conflicts with OSD #6. In addition, the blanket ban on
> removing or modifying frontend logos and copyright notices is far more
> restrictive than a typical attribution requirement and should be regarded
> as conflicting with OSD #3.
>
> Accordingly, I don’t think this license can be considered Open Source.
>
> 2025/10/15 17:56 Moming Duan <duanmoming at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear OSI Community,
>>
>>
>> Recently, I noticed that an AI agent framework platform named Dify (
>> https://github.com/langgenius/dify ) has become quite popular, gaining
>> over 116K stars on GitHub.
>> This project claims to be “open source” and is distributed under the
>> Apache-2.0 license with additional conditions, as shown below.
>> I think these additional terms may conflict with OSD6 and would
>> appreciate the community’s comments on this issue.
>>
>>
>> # Open Source License
>>
>> Dify is licensed under a modified version of the Apache License 2.0, with the following additional conditions:
>>
>> 1. Dify may be utilized commercially, including as a backend service for other applications or as an application development platform for enterprises. Should the conditions below be met, a commercial license must be obtained from the producer:
>>
>> a. Multi-tenant service: Unless explicitly authorized by Dify in writing, you may not use the Dify source code to operate a multi-tenant environment.
>>     - Tenant Definition: Within the context of Dify, one tenant corresponds to one workspace. The workspace provides a separated area for each tenant's data and configurations.
>>
>> b. LOGO and copyright information: In the process of using Dify's frontend, you may not remove or modify the LOGO or copyright information in the Dify console or applications. This restriction is inapplicable to uses of Dify that do not involve its frontend.
>>     - Frontend Definition: For the purposes of this license, the "frontend" of Dify includes all components located in the `web/` directory when running Dify from the raw source code, or the "web" image when running Dify with Docker.
>>
>> 2. As a contributor, you should agree that:
>>
>> a. The producer can adjust the open-source agreement to be more strict or relaxed as deemed necessary.
>> b. Your contributed code may be used for commercial purposes, including but not limited to its cloud business operations.
>>
>> Apart from the specific conditions mentioned above, all other rights and restrictions follow the Apache License 2.0. Detailed information about the Apache License 2.0 can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
>>
>> The interactive design of this product is protected by appearance patent.
>>
>> © 2025 LangGenius, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Moming
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Shuji Sado
> Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
> https://opensource.jp/
> English blog: https://shujisado.org/
> Japanese blog: https://shujisado.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
English blog: https://shujisado.org/
Japanese blog: https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251015/4fde70fd/attachment-0001.htm>