# Licence and preferred attribution for Technology Report data

**URL:** <https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/licence-and-preferred-attribution-for-technology-report-data/3117>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [September 15, 2026, 8:59am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/licence-and-preferred-attribution-for-technology-report-data/3117 "2026-09-15T08:59:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![immortal](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/immortal/32/2410_2.png) [@immortal](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/immortal)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 8:59am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/licence-and-preferred-attribution-for-technology-report-data/3117/1 "2026-09-15T08:59:39Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I run [inetgeek.com](http://inetgeek.com), a small comparison site for hosting and infrastructure  
providers. I’ve started using the Technology Report API to show per-category  
adoption bars — for example the three PaaS providers I track, sized by origins  
detected in the latest crawl, linking back to the relevant tech report page.

Two things I couldn’t resolve from the docs, and I’d rather ask than assume:

1. Is there a licence for the Technology Report / HTTP Archive dataset itself?  
I checked the FAQ, the About page, [har.fyi](http://har.fyi) and the GitHub org. I can see  
[httparchive.org](http://httparchive.org) and data-pipeline are Apache-2.0 and the Wappalyzer fork is  
GPL-3.0, but those cover code rather than the output numbers. Is the data  
CC0, CC-BY, or something else?

2. Is there a preferred attribution string? Right now each chart reads  
“Source: HTTP Archive” and links to  
[HTTP Archive: Tech Report](https://httparchive.org/reports/techreport/tech) . Happy to change the wording  
or the link target if you’d rather it pointed somewhere specific.

For what it’s worth, usage is tiny: one build-time request per month, and the  
numbers are cached in the repo rather than fetched per page view.

One small note in case it’s useful to the team: a few technologies that exist in  
the catalogue are easy to mistake for a different vendor of the same name —  
“Doppler” is [fromdoppler.com](http://fromdoppler.com) (email marketing) rather than [doppler.com](http://doppler.com) (the  
secrets manager), and “Neon CRM” is Neon One rather than [neon.com](http://neon.com) (Postgres).  
Not a bug, just a trap for anyone matching vendor names automatically.

Thanks for publishing this openly — it’s the only free source I found that  
counts the same kind of thing as the commercial crawlers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tunetheweb](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/tunetheweb/32/1671_2.png) [@tunetheweb](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/tunetheweb)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 9:30am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/licence-and-preferred-attribution-for-technology-report-data/3117/2 "2026-09-21T09:30:52Z")

</div>

Yeah we should really define this better!

Here’s what we last said about this: [What are the rights/licensing for data in HTTP Archive?](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/what-are-the-rights-licensing-for-data-in-http-archive/1924)

TLDR: We’re happy (and encourage!) people to use the data and attribution is appreciated, but not required.

Of course some of the data is what’s collected from crawls of the public web so reusing assets from those websites may carry their own licencing terms and conditions. But for the aggregate stats that the HTTP Archive produces we’re happy for it to be re-used.