Dify License problem

[namoen0301]

Self Checks

• I have searched for existing issues search for existing issues, including closed ones.
• I confirm that I am using English to submit report (我已阅读并同意 Language Policy).
• [FOR CHINESE USERS] 请务必使用英文提交 Issue，否则会被关闭。谢谢！:)
• Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields.

Provide a description of requested docs changes

Hi,

Dify uses a modified open-source license (Apache 2.0 with additional restrictions). However, the added restrictions contradict the terms of the Apache 2.0 license, which permits unrestricted use and distribution of the code. Does this imply that Dify is not truly open-source software but source-available?

dify/README.md

Line 57 in 42968cb

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Its intuitive interface combines agentic AI workflow, RAG pipeline, agent capabilities, model management, observability features and more, letting you quickly go from prototype to production.

It would be better to change:

Dify is an source-available LLM app development platform. Its intuitive interface combines agentic AI workflow, RAG pipeline, agent capabilities, model management, observability features and more, letting you quickly go from prototype to production. 

[dosubot]

Hello @wbsdty331! I'm here to help you with any bugs, questions, or contributions you have for Dify. Let's tackle this together!

I found relevant information regarding the classification of Dify's license. Dify is indeed considered "source-available" rather than "open-source" due to the additional restrictions in its modified Apache 2.0 license. These restrictions include limitations on operating a multi-tenant environment and requirements for maintaining logo and copyright information in the frontend ^[1].

To continue talking to Dosu, mention @dosu.

---

^{Help Dosu learn! Give it feedback: Great Response | Irrelevant Answer | Incorrect Sources | Too Verbose | Hallucination | Bug Report | Other}

[namoen0301]

Closing this issue won't solve the problem. actually, i really hope an opensource lawyer to clearify it.