Most engineers discover n8n the same way: it looks like an open-source alternative to Zapier or Make, you can self-host it, and the visual workflow builder makes it attractive for both prototypes and internal automation. On paper, it feels like the perfect way to ship workflow automation without recurring vendor fees.
The problem is that the moment a company attempts to use n8n beyond internal workflows, especially inside a paid SaaS product the legal and architectural limitations surface fast. What looks like “free automation” is only free under a specific usage model, and it has direct impact on product strategy, security, revenue models, and long-term maintainability.
This article breaks down the three dimensions most people overlook:
- Licensing and redistribution rights
- Architecture and runtime behavior
- Operational maturity at scale
It is not an anti-n8n article. n8n is excellent when used within its intended scope. The issue is that many teams assume “self-hosted + GitHub repo = fully open-source and commercially unrestricted,” which is not true.
1. The Sustainable Use License: What It Actually Allows
n8n is not distributed under MIT, Apache-2, GPL-3 or any classic OSI-approved license. It uses the Sustainable Use License (SUL), which is a hybrid model: open code base, but commercial redistribution and embedding are restricted unless you pay for an enterprise agreement.
The key rule in plain language:
You may use n8n for internal purposes inside your own company.
You may not embed n8n inside a commercial product or resell it as a service without a paid commercial licence.
That has direct implications:
| Scenario | Allowed Without Paid License? |
|---|---|
| Internal company automation | Yes |
| Building workflows for clients as a service | Yes |
| Embedding n8n inside a SaaS product | No |
| Reselling workflows as a paid product | No |
| Hosting n8n and charging external users | No |
| Using n8n as the backend for customer-facing automation | No |
So the real legal question is not “Is n8n open-source?” but:
Will another company or customer be using the automation as part of a paid product?
If the answer is yes, a commercial agreement is required.
A full breakdown of n8n usage models is available here:
https://scalevise.com/resources/n8n/
2. Architecture: What You Should Know Before Production
Even when the licensing fits the use-case, n8n has architectural constraints that matter when running it as a core system component.
2.1 Execution model
n8n uses a single-process workflow runtime unless scaled manually. Each workflow execution shares memory space unless you configure queue mode with workers. That matters for:
- long-running jobs
- parallel processing
- isolation guarantees
- crash blast radius
If one badly written workflow blocks the event loop, other workflows pause.
2.2 Scaling strategy
Scaling n8n is not horizontal plug-and-play. There are two modes:
| Mode | Notes |
|---|---|
| Default mode | Single instance, in-memory executions |
| Queue/worker mode | Requires Redis plus separate worker containers |
Queue mode works, but it pushes n8n into “lightweight orchestration engine” territory, meaning you must handle:
- Shared state
- Retry queues
- Worker restarts
- Duplicate execution prevention
- Distributed logging
At that point you are maintaining an automation platform, not just using one.
2.3 Workflow persistence and auditability
n8n does not offer:
- execution signatures
- tamper-proof logs
- immutable audit trails
- workflow version diffing
- RBAC with granular step-level permissions
That is fine inside an internal n8n automation environment. It is not fine if:
- You have compliance requirements
- You are exposing automation to customers
- You need traceability per user or tenant
- You need SOC2, ISO, HIPAA, PCI, or GDPR auditability
3. Operational Trade-offs
n8n works well when:
- One engineering team owns the full environment
- Workflows run inside a trusted network
- Failures do not affect end-customers
- You can restart the container without SLA concerns
- You do not need multi-tenant workflow isolation
It becomes an operational liability when:
- You embed it into a SaaS application backend
- You sell workflow automation as a product feature
- You need tenant-level sandboxing
- You require uptime guarantees or SLAs
- You need zero-downtime deploys
4. The Real Question Is Not “Can I Automate?”
It’s “Who is the automation for?”
- If automation is for your internal team, n8n is a good fit.
- If automation is for your paying customers, you are now a vendor — and the license reflects that.
A deeper automation-versus-agents comparison is available here:
https://scalevise.com/resources/agentkit-vs-n8n-workflow-automation/
5. Comparison Table: Where It Works vs Where It Breaks
| Dimension | n8n Strength | n8n Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Free for internal use | Paid license for SaaS embedding |
| Visual builder | Strong | Limited debugging visibility |
| Scaling | Works with Redis + workers | Not elastic by default |
| Multi-tenancy | Single-tenant | Isolation requires custom architecture |
| Compliance | Fine for internal ops | No native audit immutability |
| Workflow portability | JSON exportable | No declarative infra model |
| Embedding in products | Restricted by license | Requires enterprise contract |
| Failure handling | Retry logic | No circuit breaker or saga pattern |
| Observability | Basic logs | No metrics, tracing, or APM hooks |
6. Alternatives With Full Commercial Freedom
If the constraint is “we need to embed automation into a paid product,” the alternatives fall into three categories:
| Category | Examples | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fully open-source workflow engines | Temporal, Camunda, Prefect | Requires coding, not visual builders |
| Commercial automation platforms | Make, Workato, Tray | No self-host without enterprise plan |
| Agent-based automation frameworks | LangGraph, AgentKit, Bedrock Agents | Automates through code, not UI |
The trade-off is always the same:
You either pay in engineering complexity, or licensing.
7. When n8n Is Still the Right Tool
n8n is a strong choice when:
- You want a visual workflow builder without SaaS fees
- You control the environment end-to-end
- You do not need multi-tenant separation
- You do not need audited logging
- You prefer JavaScript-based function nodes
- You want to automate back-office or internal tooling
In those conditions, it is one of the fastest ways to ship process automation.
8. When It Becomes a Liability
n8n is the wrong choice if:
- You plan to sell automation as a core SaaS feature
- You need 100 percent workflow isolation per tenant
- You require write-protected audit logs
- You need queue-backed retries with deduplication guarantees
- You need per-customer rate limits or billing
- You must pass regulated compliance frameworks
A wider breakdown of workflow cost versus architecture decisions is here:
https://scalevise.com/resources/workflow-optimization-simplify-and-save-money/
9. The Practical Takeaway
n8n is a workflow builder, not a workflow engine for commercial redistribution.
It is excellent for:
- Internal automation
- RPA-style workflow chains
- Back-office tooling
- Low-code experimentation
- Single-tenant controlled environments
It is risky for:
- Product backends
- Paid customer workflows
- Multi-tenant SaaS
- Compliance-regulated automation
- Any system where failure is client-visible
If your automation is inside the walls of your company, n8n is one of the best options available.
If your automation is a product, the license makes the decision for you.
Top comments (8)
Interesting breakdown, but the license thing still feels overblown. If you self-host n8n, who’s going to stop you from using it in a SaaS product? It’s open source anyway.
You’re mixing “source-available” with “open-source.”
The SUL license explicitly prohibits commercial embedding.
The problem isn’t “who will stop you today” it’s what happens the moment:
• you raise funding
• you get audited
• you try to sell
• a customer asks for legal clearance
• n8n GmbH sends a compliance notice
Engineering risk is predictable. Legal risk is retroactive.
as @alifar pointed out n8n is not using a traditional opensource license
a rule of the thumb is:
-> open source != free of charge
in the GenAI space you have to be especially careful. It's not that rare to see project to claim to be a traditional permissive license only to have some restrictions hidden in the preamble.
Totally agree. The confusion usually comes from the visual builder + public repo combo. People assume “GitHub + self-host” means MIT-style freedom, but the SUL model is a different category entirely.
Who’s actually going to stop you from using n8n in a SaaS product?
The license. The moment you scale, raise money, or get audited, it becomes a legal problem.
We build workflows for clients. Is that allowed?
Yes. Service work is allowed. Reselling it as a product is not.