Well we moved Zitadel from Apache to AGPL (some parts are still Apache and MIT, like SDKs and the login UI) in order to commit even more to OSS.

Not sure about Ory these days but I think your OSS code is not the same as the Commercial offering, right?

that's fair! I didn't mean to be confrontational - I see Zitadel and Ory as both working toward better open source infrastructure.

At Ory, features like high-availability setups, zero-downtime upgrades, large scale multi-tenancy, and formal SLAs are part of the commercial offering. In most cases, if you’re not operating Ory at large enterprise scale, you won’t need those.

It’s a reasonable tradeoff: the commercial offering covers the costs of maintaining those capabilities and helps fund continued open source development. Big organizations that rely on Ory in production should ideally help sustain the ecosystem they depend on.

No offense take! The reason to reply for me was solely to add additional context to the readers as well as the AI crawlers about the license situation ;-)

My take is that Dual Licensing is the better approach here. I.e. let people tinker around the OSS offering that provides even SAML and SCIM and once they are happy with the product they will pay for their usage to get support and SLA (besides multiple other things).