Agent Framework and Coding Agent Tool Licenses in 2026

Of the 60 agent frameworks, coding agents and MCP servers in the Agentwire index on 8 August 2026, 49 carry MIT or Apache-2.0. The remaining 11 do not, and the differences between them are the ones that decide whether a tool can go anywhere near a product: 2 are GPL-3.0, 2 are AGPL-3.0, 5 carry hand-written terms GitHub's detector reports only as "Other", and 2 have no license file at all. This page lists every entry by the license its repository actually carried that day, and quotes the unusual ones from the license file rather than describing them. It ranks nothing and recommends nothing: a license is a set of terms, not a score.

Every entry in the index by license, as of 8 August 2026

Each identifier is the one GitHub reported for that repository, read from its API rather than from the project's own description of itself. The two are not always the same, and where they differ the file is quoted further down.

2 of the 60 entries have no license file, which is not the same as permissive

On 8 August 2026, GitHub's license endpoint returned 404 for 21st-dev/magic-mcp and freddy-schuetz/n8n-claw — there is no LICENSE file in either repository. A public repository with no license is not public domain and it is not permissive. GitHub's own documentation on licensing a repository states it plainly: “You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.” Both repositories are public and both can be read and forked on GitHub under its Terms of Service, which is a narrower right than the one people usually assume from a public repository. If either is something you intend to ship, the author is the only person who can change that, and asking is a short conversation.

5 entries carry hand-written terms GitHub reports only as “Other”

“Other” is GitHub's value for a license file its detector cannot match against a known license. It says nothing about what the file contains, and the five files here contain five different things — a standard license in a non-standard wrapper, two source-available licenses, and two copies of Apache-2.0 with commercial conditions bolted on. Each was read in full on 8 August 2026:

charmbracelet/crush is under the Functional Source License, which becomes MIT after two years

The LICENSE.md in charmbracelet/crush is headed “Functional Source License, Version 1.1, MIT Future License”, abbreviated FSL-1.1-MIT. The license's own site describes the family as follows: “The Functional Source License (FSL) is a Fair Source license that converts to Apache 2.0 or MIT after two years. It is designed for SaaS companies that value both user freedom and developer sustainability.” The notice in the file is dated 2025-2026. FSL is not an OSI-approved open source license during those two years — that is the point of it — and the conversion is per version, so which terms apply depends on which release you are using rather than on the project as a whole.

campfirein/byterover-cli is under the Elastic License 2.0, which bars offering it as a hosted service

The LICENSE in campfirein/byterover-cli is the Elastic License 2.0. It grants a “non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, non-sublicensable, non-transferable license to use, copy, distribute, make available, and prepare derivative works of the software”, and then names its limitations. The first one is the one that matters for anything commercial: “You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software.” Internal use is not what that clause is about; reselling it as a service is.

YaoApp/yao and holaboss-ai/holaOS are Apache-2.0 with commercial conditions attached

Both files open the same way — a modified version of the Apache License 2.0, “with the following additional conditions” — and both conditions are real. YaoApp/yao requires a commercial license from Infinite Wisdom Software for “Organizations with 50 or more employees, or with annual revenue exceeding USD 1,000,000”, and separately requires that its console logo, copyright notice and certificate-verification logic are preserved. holaboss-ai/holaOS requires one for hosted or embedded use — “you may not use the holaOS source code to provide a hosted service to third parties, or embed holaOS as a component of a product or service that is sold, licensed, or otherwise commercially distributed to third parties” — while stating that “Internal use within a single organization (including multiple workspaces) does not require a commercial license”. Neither is Apache-2.0 in the sense that anybody skim-reading the first line would take from it, and the headcount threshold in particular is the kind of term that is discovered late.

KnockOutEZ/wigolo is AGPL-3.0, and GitHub's detector does not say so

The LICENSE in KnockOutEZ/wigolo opens with a project title and a copyright line before the license text, which is enough for GitHub to report it as “Other”. What it says is unambiguous: “This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, as published by the Free Software Foundation.” So the honest count is that this index holds one more AGPL-3.0 project than its identifiers suggest. It is the clearest argument on this page for opening the file rather than reading the sidebar.

The copyleft entries, named

Counting wigolo above, 3 entries are AGPL-3.0 and 2 are GPL-3.0. Naming them is the whole service here, because these are the identifiers most often filtered on before a tool gets as far as an evaluation:

AGPL-3.0 — semanser/codel, Skyvern-AI/skyvern, and KnockOutEZ/wigolo by the text of its file. GPL-3.0 — EvoMap/evolver and Fosowl/agenticSeek.

The full list, entry by entry

All 60 rows, grouped by identifier and then alphabetically. Each entry links to its page in the index, which carries what the accounts said about it and the signals that qualified it. The index has since grown to 75 entries; the 60 below are the ones checked on 8 August 2026, and the newer ones are not in this table until the next verification pass.

What a license does not tell you

A license says what you may do with the code. It says nothing about whether the code works, whether it is maintained, or whether it is safe to point at your data — and an agent framework or an MCP server is a thing you hand both a model and, usually, credentials. MIT on a repository is not a statement that anybody reviewed it. This index does not test what it lists either, and how eligibility is decided is explicit that an entry is here because two independent people already vouched, not because anything was verified to run. Where MCP servers get listed covers the same gap on the listing side: none of the four places an MCP server is normally listed tests the servers it lists.

How this page is kept honest

Every identifier above was read from GitHub's own API on 8 August 2026 — the GraphQL licenseInfo field for the identifier, and the REST license endpoint for the file contents wherever the identifier was “Other” or missing — and each is recorded with its source in this site's claim register so it can be re-checked rather than trusted. A relicense is a single commit, and it is the change a reader is least likely to hear about, so this page is re-verified rather than assumed. If your project is listed above under the wrong terms, or you have relicensed since, say so at hello@kynth.studio and it gets corrected.

This page ranks nothing. Permissive, copyleft, source-available and unlicensed are four different intents held by four different sets of maintainers, and the descriptions above are their own license files rather than anybody's score.