Come for the products,
stay for the community

The Atlassian Community can help you and your team get more value out of Atlassian products and practices.

Atlassian Community about banner
Community Members
Community Events
Community Groups

Atlassian As A Service

I'm brewing an idea here but I wanted to reach out and see what other Atlassian users think.

Basically, I'm considering opening a new Atlassian account as an umbrella service account. I would then contract with other business (I have a few who need it) and completely silo out the users, projects, workflows, service desk, confluence spaces etc.. Each sub company under the umbrella would only have access to their relevant projects.

Would mixing the sub companies like this have any negative side effects I'm not taking into consideration?

Would it make more sense to help sub companies set up their own implementation?

I would like to hear your thoughts on if this is a good idea or bad idea.


An instance of an Atlassian system holds a pile of shared objects that you cannot separate away by people.

Imagine the simple case where Alice, Bob and Charlie all have a separate Jira project, the permissions are set to only allow them into their project and they can't see the others.  Next imagine you create three fields, again tied into their projects - say Shape-Alice, Shape-Bob, Shape-Charlie.  You have some problems:

All three of those fields will be offered to them in searches and reports.  Even if the fields are only populated in the separate projects, everyone will be able to see all of the fields on offer.  If you share the field instead, so Shape appears in all three, it's less of a problem, but remember that everyone will be able to see all the options in the list (again, not the issues in other projects)

Alice, Bob and Charlie will be offered the ability to see and mention each other's accounts, with them appearing in other user-pickers in some cases.  

Even if you turn off "browse users" for them, they can still stumble into them by accident, in search or mention - there was one system I worked with where there was a nic and a nicb and people often got the wrong one when they started trying to mention one of us.  We re-enabled the user directory in the end.

Thank you for your reply. You raise some really good concerns. The fields I wasn't too worried about, but the accidental references might be the deal breaker here. I also wonder if this is against some sort of TOS. I'll have to take a close look. Thanks!

Nah, it's not breaching any terms of service, you can invite whomever you'd like into your Jira/Confluence/Bitbucket etc, from any organisation you want, and then segregate them by project/space/etc as well. 

Your main worry if you're going to do this is the "leak" between the various people and organisations, they can't be completely isolated from each other.

Oh I meant more along the lines of charging for my installation. Is it breaching if I monetize users on my side.

Ah, good point, I hadn't thought of that.  I suspect it's ok, as you could easily argue people like Adaptavist and other (less Atlassian) consultancies do it indirectly.  We regularly fire up Jira and Confluence pairs to help communicate with our clients, and as we're getting paid to work for them on their projects, you could argue that them paying us for the project work includes their licence usage of our Jira/Confluence.  But that's not what I think of as direct monetisation, so I'd really want to do the research on the T&Cs before I did it directly as you describe.

Another point to consider is that when the users go to the Project > View All Projects list they will see all the projects including the ones to which they don't have access.

You also need to consider the security needs of your clients. Are they operating in industries where co-mingling of data would make them out of compliance for data security standards for their industry?

And, what if your clients have clients of their own with whom they want to share the data? That adds another level of complexity to trying to silo the accessible data.

There is the concept of an Atlassian Organization that contains multiple Sites. A structure like that might work for siloing your clients if they each have a separate Site under your Organization. I have not actually worked with such an environment, so I'm not sure how much siloing it offers for users, specifically, nor have I looked at things like licensing and billing for such a set up.

Great points here! Definitely glad I reached out! Thank you. 

Um, actually, only admins get to see the full list of projects.  If a non-admin user doesn't have "browse project" for a project, then it won't be shown to them in the list of all projects, Jira hides it completely.

But the security needs there are definitely things to think about.

Ah, I am a Jira Admin, but not a Site Admin (anymore), so I can't always tell what non-admins can see. I thought from discussions in the Questions section that folks were indicating non-admins could see all the Projects in the Projects list, but if they try to drill into the project then they get permissions errors.

Thanks @Nic Brough _Adaptavist_ 

Like Nic Brough _Adaptavist_ likes this

I believe this is a violation of the TOS @jfischer . See 3.3.b of

3.3. Restrictions. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in these Terms, you will not: (a) reproduce, modify, adapt or create derivative works of the Cloud Products; (b) rent, lease, distribute, sell, sublicense, transfer or provide access to the Cloud Products to a third party...

There's a similar clause in the on-prem TOS.

Good find! I'm wondering if I couldn't do something like @Nic Brough _Adaptavist_ mentioned. Where, I'm not charging the client specifically for seats, but rather my administrative services and they just happen to be apart of my over-arching organization?

Well, wait a second now. Doesn't this bit in the 3.3 Restrictions section bascially say we can't offer Atlassian products and services to a 3rd party?

... (c) use the Cloud Products for the benefit of any third party; (d) incorporate any Cloud Products into a product or service you provide to a third party...

Do you think I would be able to sell myself and say "hey, I can install, configure and help you manage an Atlassian installation." Or, does that break the terms as well?

It would just be easier if I could just say "hey, I have a thing. Do you want to be apart of it for $x/mo".

I actually spent a lot of time chasing this down with Atlassian's legal team a few years ago. The key is that the license has to belong to the organization using it.

So let's say I want to run a company helping people with their Atlassian instances. I can totally do that, but the license has to be in their name, not mine.

I can't spin up 10 instances, give access to people in 10 different companies, and help them with it.

Instead, I can help 10 different companies spin up instances, which are licensed to those 10 different companies, and then I can assist them. 

...I'm not charging the client specifically for seats, but rather my administrative services and they just happen to be apart of my over-arching organization?

You can charge for the services, but it may be in violation of the TOS for the customers to be part of your over-arching organization because those customers are actually part of a different organization.

There are businesses that use internal chargebacks where IT will "bill" a department for running an instance or providing support. That's allowed because the department isn't a 3rd party, they're part of the same organization. That isn't what you're proposing here, though, which is why it runs afoul of the TOS.

I guess the term "organization" is a little bit ambiguous here isn't it? I mean, whose to say what an organization really is. At it's core, it's just a grouping of users/projects. Teams seem to be the same thing.

So, when a client wants to use Jira and I already have a good system in place, I invite them in as a team inside of an organization and give them some users and then tell them each user is $8.00/mo (instead of $7.50).

Now, the client is part of "my" organization. I'm paying for each user. The client is reimbursing me (plus $.50) for those users.

It's confusing when you cross reference section 3.3 Restrictions with 2.4. Responsibility for End Users where it says:

You are responsible for understanding the settings and controls for each Cloud Product you use and for controlling whom you allow to become an End User. If payment is required for End Users to use or access a Cloud Product, then we are only required to provide the Cloud Products to those End Users for whom you have paid the applicable fees, and only such End Users are permitted to access and use the Cloud Products.

I would interpret charging them for access as sublicensing, but you can always contact Atlassian to see what they say!


Log in or Sign up to comment
Community showcase
Published in Jira Software

An update on Jira Software customer feedback – June 2022

Hello Atlassian Community! Feedback from customers like you has helped us shape and improve Jira Software. As Head of Product, Jira Software, I wanted to take this opportunity to share an update on...

122 views 2 5
Read article

Community Events

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Find an event

Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!

Unfortunately there are no Community Events near you at the moment.

Host an event

You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local event. Learn more about Community Events

Events near you