Licences that decide the future of your e-commerce

In e-commerce, it is very easy to focus on what is visible at first glance. Features, performance, UX, implementation costs, availability of integrations. These are the elements that dominate comparisons of sales platforms and often determine the choice of technology. Meanwhile, one of the most fundamental factors, which in the long term has a huge impact on the security and value of the business, usually remains in the background – the licence.

A software licence is not an abstract legal record detached from business realities. It is a mechanism that defines who controls the technology, which development models are possible and where the boundaries of an organisation’s independence lie. In mature e-commerce, the platform licence becomes an element of strategy, not a technical detail.

Why does the licence matter at the management level?

From the perspective of a CEO or an online store owner, a sales platform is not just an IT tool. It is the foundation on which sales processes, logistics, marketing, system integrations and future growth opportunities are built. The licence determines whether technology can be freely developed, monetised and adapted to a changing business model, or whether it imposes rigid frameworks that over time begin to limit the organisation.

The differences between MIT, OSL-3.0 and AFL-3.0 licences are therefore not theoretical. They translate directly into whether the company:
can build its own technological solutions without legal risk,
retains full rights to the created IP,
is able to change the business model without changing the platform,
maintains control over costs in the long term,
remains attractive for investment when selling the company or bringing in an investor.

MIT – a licence that gives control to the user

The MIT licence, on which the Shopware core is based, represents a maximally pragmatic and business-safe approach. Its assumption is simple: the user can do almost anything with the code. They can modify it, close it, redistribute it, use it commercially, build their own products and develop solutions in SaaS, white-label or platform models.

In practice, this means that technology stops being a limitation and becomes a base on which an organisation can build its own technological competencies, its own products and its own competitive advantages. The code created within the project remains the company’s property and does not generate licensing obligations in the future.

For the business, this means predictability. No risk that legal barriers will appear along with growth, preventing further development. No fear that a change in the business model will require a technological migration. MIT does not impose a direction – it gives freedom.

OSL-3.0 – open source with significant limitations

OSL-3.0, on which the PrestaShop core is based, operates according to a completely different logic. It is a copyleft-type licence, which in certain scenarios imposes an obligation to make code available and limits the ability to distribute software in SaaS and cloud models. In practice, this means that technology cannot be freely used as the foundation of one’s own product or service.

For a small store that does not plan technological development beyond its own installation, these differences may seem of little importance. The problem appears when an organisation begins to think more broadly – about its own tools, international expansion, centralisation of sales or even monetisation of technological know-how.

In practice, the OSL-3.0 licence makes it impossible to create full, independent versions of the platform and to develop it in other distribution models. This means that the user’s independence from the platform owner is in practice limited. Even if the code is available, its real use is subject to restrictions that in the long term have strategic significance.

AFL-3.0 – invisible risk in the module ecosystem

Even greater consequences are carried by the AFL-3.0 licence, under which a huge number of modules in the PrestaShop ecosystem are distributed. Formally, it is an open source licence, but in practice it is very often accompanied by closed source code and limitations on modification and further use.

For the store owner, this means that key functional elements – pricing logic, integrations, checkout processes – are outside their real control. The company invests in store development, but does not build its own IP. Every update, every change and every compatibility risk depends on an external vendor.

In management terms, AFL-3.0 means growing technological lock-in. The more complex the store, the harder it is to manage it without the acceptance and support of module vendors. In the long term, this translates into growing maintenance costs and limited business flexibility.

Licence vs business valuation and due diligence

More and more often, the licence of an e-commerce platform appears as an element of analysis in due diligence processes. Investors, funds and potential buyers increasingly understand that technology is not neutral. A platform based on a licence that limits development, forks or SaaS models carries risk that must be reflected in the valuation.

Companies based on solutions with the MIT licence are perceived as more flexible, scalable and resilient to market changes. Where the core and custom solutions remain the organisation’s property, technological risk is lower and development predictability is greater. In the case of ecosystems based on OSL-3.0 and AFL-3.0, investors increasingly ask questions about dependence on vendors, the possibility of migration and long-term maintenance costs.

PrestaShop and Shopware – open source in two versions

At this point, a fundamental contrast appears. PrestaShop represents a model of ideological open source – formally open, but in practice strongly limited by licences and the structure of the ecosystem. Shopware, on the other hand, is based on practical open source, in which the user retains full control over the code, IP and the direction of technology development.

For management, this is not a matter of technological preferences. It is a decision about who controls a key element of the business in the long term. Whether the platform is a tool subordinated to the company’s strategy, or whether the company must adapt its strategy to the limitations of the technology.

Consultations with CREHLER – a conversation about licences before pressure appears

At CREHLER, we increasingly conduct conversations that are not about migration here and now, but about understanding licensing consequences over the next few years. For many companies, it becomes crucial to organise knowledge – what rights to technology they have today, what risks current licences carry and which scenarios remain realistically available.

During consultations, we analyse not only the platform, but also the way modules are used, the scope of customisations and the potential impact of licences on future business valuation. In the context of migration to Shopware, the key is that the decision does not have to be a reaction to a crisis. It can be a calm, planned step resulting from strategy and the desire to regain control over technology.

A licence is rarely the topic of the first meeting. Very often, however, it turns out to be the factor that in the long term determines whether e-commerce remains a flexible asset or becomes a limitation to development. A free consultation with CREHLER Experts allows you to look at this aspect before it becomes a real business problem.