The Short Answer
Yes. Krayin is an MIT-licensed CRM that runs on its own. ibl.ai's CRM app is also MIT, but it is a front end that needs the ibl.ai platform behind it. Licensed and self-hosted, that platform means you own all the code and the data, on the same platform that runs your agents.
Most popular open-source CRMs are not MIT. We read each project's license rather than relying on comparison lists, which disagree with each other. The answer below is as of October 31, 2026.
Which open-source CRMs are actually MIT-licensed?
Of the open-source CRMs buyers usually shortlist, Krayin is the clear MIT option. It is built on Laravel and Vue.js and needs PHP 8.3 or higher. Six projects compare as follows, taken from each repository's own license declaration.
| CRM | License | Runs on its own? |
|---|---|---|
| Krayin | MIT | Yes |
| ibl.ai CRM | MIT (the app) | No, needs the ibl.ai platform |
| Twenty | Mostly AGPLv3, some commercial files, some MIT packages | Yes |
| SuiteCRM | AGPL-3.0 | Yes |
| EspoCRM | AGPL-3.0 | Yes |
| Frappe CRM | AGPL-3.0 | Yes, on the Frappe framework |
Frappe CRM is the one to double-check: at least one roundup we read lists it as MIT, and its repository declares AGPL-3.0. Twenty's license file also marks some enterprise files as commercial, so "open source" does not cover every feature.
Does MIT versus AGPL matter if you only run a CRM internally?
MIT versus AGPL matters less for internal use than the question implies. If you run an unmodified AGPL CRM for your own staff, the license asks little of you. The AGPL's distinctive term, section 13, applies when you modify the program.
Then users interacting with it remotely over a network must be offered your modified source. If you customize heavily, or expose the CRM to outside partners, ask counsel to read that clause. The MIT license has no such condition.
MIT mainly earns its keep when you want to embed, resell or fork without publishing changes. If you only want to avoid a vendor, either license does that. This post is not legal advice.
What does the MIT license on ibl.ai's CRM cover?
The MIT license on iblai/crm covers the application: people, organizations, deals, activities and tags, in one Next.js codebase that also builds Tauri shells for desktop and iOS, with Android still to come. Version 1.7.1 shipped on October 30, 2026.
It does not cover the backend. The repository says so directly: the app is a front end, and the platform provides sign-in, organizations, roles, notifications and the CRM API. So cloning it gets you a running interface, not a standalone CRM.
There are two ways to run it. Point the app at hosted iblai.app, in which case you run the front end and your CRM records live on our service. Or run the full platform in your own environment under an enterprise license, deployed with iblai-infra-cli.
The hosted web app and published desktop and mobile builds are listed as coming soon, so today you run it locally or deploy it yourself.
When is a licensed self-hosted platform better than a pure MIT CRM?
A licensed self-hosted platform is the better fit when the CRM is one piece of a wider agent system. If you need a standalone pipeline tool and nothing else, a pure MIT CRM is simpler and cheaper, and we would say so.
The case for Agentic CRM is what comes attached.
Sign-on via OAuth, OIDC or SAML through the platform, four seeded CRM roles (Viewer, User, Manager, Inviter), and English, Spanish, French and Chinese. The CRM and your agents sit on one platform, with one sign-in and one set of organizations and roles.
That shared layer is what a license comparison misses. RBAC policies decide who reaches what, and MCP connectors let agents reach other systems in place. Under the platform license you hold the source code, and the deployment is model-agnostic with no per-seat pricing.
For the education-specific version of this choice, including vendors outside the open-source field, see our higher education CRM buyer's guide.
What should you check before choosing a self-hosted CRM?
Before choosing a self-hosted CRM, check four things, in this order. The license is only the first of them, and it is the easiest to get wrong from a roundup article.
- Read the LICENSE file in the repository, and look for files carved out under a commercial license.
- Ask what the app depends on. A permissive front end over a hosted API is a different product from a self-contained server, ours included.
- Price single sign-on and roles. Confirm whether they are in the open tier or sold as an enterprise feature.
- Count the operating work. Backups, upgrades and security patches for one database, one app server and every integration are now yours. Self-hosting moves that cost in-house; it does not remove it.