Why Choose the MIT License? A Comprehensive Guide to Open Source Licensing

The MIT License is one of the most widely used permissive licenses in open source. It’s popular because it’s short, easy to understand, and broadly compatible—and GitHub’s recent license metrics continue to show MIT as the most common license among repositories that declare one. But popularity doesn’t mean it’s always the right choice. This guide explains what MIT permits, what it doesn’t cover (notably patents and trademarks), and how to choose between MIT, Apache 2.0, GPL-family licenses, and source-available alternatives based on your goals.

What is the MIT License?

The MIT License is a permissive open-source license created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It’s one of the shortest and simplest software licenses.

The entire license (171 words):

MIT License

Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

What MIT Actually Permits

The MIT License grants users the right to:

• Use - Run the software for any purpose (commercial or personal)
• Copy - Make copies of the software
• Modify - Change the source code
• Merge - Combine with other software
• Publish - Share the software publicly
• Distribute - Give copies to others
• Sublicense - Grant these same rights to others
• Sell - Include in commercial products

Only requirement: Include the original copyright notice and license text in all copies.

No requirement to:

• Share your modifications
• Open-source derivative works
• Use the same license for derivative works
• Attribute changes publicly

What MIT Does NOT Cover

Why Choose MIT?

1. Maximum Freedom for Users

MIT imposes minimal restrictions on users:

Your Code (MIT) → User's Proprietary Product
                  ✓ Allowed, no source code sharing required

Example: A company can use your MIT-licensed library in their closed-source SaaS product without publishing their modifications.

2. Corporate Acceptance

Companies love MIT because:

• Legal departments understand it (simple, well-tested)
• No viral copyleft concerns (won’t “infect” proprietary code)
• No patent retaliation clauses (unlike Apache 2.0)
• Can integrate into any product without restrictions

Real-world impact: React (Facebook), jQuery, Rails, Node.js all use MIT specifically for corporate adoption.

3. Simplicity and Clarity

MIT: 171 words
Apache 2.0: 10,579 words
GPLv3: 5,644 words

Most developers can read and understand MIT in under 2 minutes. Apache and GPL require legal expertise.

4. Maximum Adoption Potential

Permissive licenses encourage adoption:

Adoption barriers by license:

5. License Compatibility

MIT is compatible with almost every other license:

GPL code cannot be combined with proprietary code. MIT code can be combined with anything.

6. No Maintenance Burden

MIT has no compliance requirements:

• No need to provide source code
• No need to track modifications
• No need to maintain attribution logs
• No need to offer written patent grants

GPL requires:

• Maintain complete source history
• Provide access to corresponding source
• Track all modifications
• Ensure license compatibility of dependencies

Alternatives to MIT

1. Apache License 2.0

Similar to MIT but adds explicit patent protection.

Key differences:

When to choose Apache 2.0 over MIT:

• Your project involves patents (algorithms, protocols)
• You want explicit patent protection for users
• You want patent retaliation clause (defense against patent trolls)
• You want stronger trademark protection
• You don’t mind more complex license text

When to choose MIT over Apache 2.0:

• Simplicity is paramount
• No patents involved
• Want maximum compatibility (some avoid Apache due to patent clause)
• Want shortest possible license

Real-world examples:

• Apache 2.0: Kubernetes, Android, Swift, TensorFlow
• MIT: React, Vue, Rails, jQuery

2. GNU GPL (General Public License)

Copyleft license requiring derivative works to also be open-source.

Key difference: “Viral” copyleft

When to choose GPL over MIT:

• You want to ensure modifications remain open-source
• You believe in copyleft philosophy (freedom through obligation)
• You want to prevent proprietary forks
• You want community improvements to flow back
• You’re okay with limiting corporate adoption

When to choose MIT over GPL:

• You want maximum adoption (including proprietary use)
• You don’t care if someone makes a closed-source fork
• You want corporate/enterprise acceptance
• You want simplicity over copyleft enforcement

GPL variants:

• GPLv2: Linux kernel, Git
• GPLv3: Bash, GCC, GIMP (adds patent protections, anti-tivoization)
• LGPL: Weaker copyleft, allows dynamic linking without viral effect
• AGPL: Strongest copyleft, applies to network services (MongoDB was AGPL)

3. BSD Licenses (2-Clause and 3-Clause)

Very similar to MIT with minor differences.

BSD 3-Clause vs MIT:

The BSD “endorsement clause”:

Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors 
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without 
specific prior written permission.

When to choose BSD over MIT:

• You want to prevent others from using your name/project name in marketing
• You want slightly more explicit protection against endorsement claims
• You’re at a BSD-friendly institution (UC Berkeley legacy)

When to choose MIT over BSD:

• You don’t care about the endorsement clause
• You want the shortest possible license
• BSD 3-Clause is functionally identical for most use cases

Real-world examples:

• BSD 3-Clause: Django, Flask, nginx
• BSD 2-Clause: FreeBSD, NetBSD (simpler, removes endorsement clause)

4. Unlicense / Public Domain (CC0)

Most permissive: gives away all rights.

Unlicense vs MIT:

When to choose Unlicense over MIT:

• You want absolute zero restrictions
• You don’t care about attribution
• You don’t want to maintain copyright
• Your code is trivial (small utilities, examples)

When to choose MIT over Unlicense:

• You want attribution for your work
• You want clear legal status worldwide
• You want to retain copyright (even if you give broad permissions)

Real-world examples:

• Unlicense: SQLite, some educational code samples

5. Proprietary / Source-Available Licenses

Not open-source, but source code is visible.

Examples: Business Source License (BSL), Elastic License 2.0, Server Side Public License (SSPL)

When companies choose these:

• They want to prevent cloud providers from offering their software as a service
• They want to monetize specific use cases (e.g., “free except AWS/GCP”)
• They want community contributions but control commercial usage

Trade-offs:

• Not OSI-approved open-source
• Reduces community contributions (unclear rights)
• Limits adoption (companies avoid non-standard licenses)
• Can alienate open-source community

Examples:

• MongoDB: GPL → AGPL → SSPL (to prevent AWS DocumentDB)
• Elastic: Apache 2.0 → Elastic License 2.0 (to prevent AWS Elasticsearch)
• HashiCorp: MPL 2.0 → BSL (Terraform, Vault)

Decision Framework: Which License Should You Choose?

Step 1: What is Your Primary Goal?

Step 2: Answer These Key Questions

Question 1: Do you care if companies use your code in closed-source products?

• No, I want maximum adoption → MIT or Apache 2.0
• Yes, they must share modifications → GPL/AGPL

Question 2: Are patents involved in your project?

• Yes → Apache 2.0 (explicit patent grant + retaliation)
• No → MIT (simpler)

Question 3: Is your project a library that others will link against?

• Yes, and I want proprietary apps to use it → MIT or Apache 2.0
• Yes, but derivatives must be open → LGPL (allows dynamic linking)
• No, it’s an application → GPL (if copyleft) or MIT (if permissive)

Question 4: Is your project a network service (SaaS, API)?

• Yes, and I want cloud providers to share modifications → AGPL
• Yes, but I want to prevent cloud providers entirely → SSPL or Elastic License
• No → MIT or GPL

Question 5: Do you want attribution for your work?

• Yes → MIT (requires copyright notice)
• No, I don’t care → Unlicense

Step 3: Common Scenarios

Real-World Examples: Why Projects Chose Their Licenses

React (MIT)

Why MIT:

• Facebook wanted maximum adoption across startups and enterprises
• No barriers to use in proprietary applications
• Simple license reduces friction

Result: Became the most popular UI library, used by millions of developers.

Alternative considered: Apache 2.0 (rejected as too complex for a library)

Linux Kernel (GPLv2)

Why GPL:

• Linus Torvalds wanted to ensure improvements stayed open-source
• Prevent proprietary forks that don’t contribute back
• Copyleft philosophy aligned with community values

Result: Massive collaboration, but some companies hesitant due to copyleft concerns.

Alternative considered: BSD (rejected - would allow proprietary Unix variants)

TensorFlow (Apache 2.0)

Why Apache:

• Google needed explicit patent protection (machine learning patents)
• Patent retaliation clause protects contributors
• Encourages commercial adoption while protecting IP

Result: Industry standard for ML, used in proprietary products without legal concerns.

Alternative considered: MIT (rejected - insufficient patent protection)

MongoDB (AGPL → SSPL)

Why AGPL initially:

• Wanted cloud providers to contribute modifications back
• Network copyleft prevents SaaS loopholes

Why SSPL later:

• AWS offered DocumentDB (MongoDB-compatible) without contributing
• AGPL wasn’t strong enough (AWS didn’t modify code, just used wire protocol)
• SSPL prevents offering as a service without open-sourcing service layer

Result: Controversy (not OSI-approved), but protected business model.

Alternative considered: GPL (rejected - doesn’t cover network services)

SQLite (Public Domain)

Why Public Domain:

• D. Richard Hipp wanted zero restrictions
• Used in embedded devices, no attribution overhead
• Simple as possible for maximum adoption

Result: Most deployed database engine in the world (billions of devices).

Alternative considered: MIT (rejected - attribution requirement adds friction)

Common Misconceptions About MIT

Misconception 1: “MIT means I can’t make money”

False. MIT allows commercial use by everyone, including you.

You can:

• Sell MIT-licensed software
• Offer paid support for MIT-licensed projects
• Dual-license (MIT for open-source, commercial license for proprietary features)
• Charge for hosted services
• Charge for binaries while offering source for free

Examples:

• Redis: MIT license, Redis Labs sells Redis Enterprise
• Sidekiq: MIT license (open-source core), paid Pro/Enterprise versions
• Tailwind CSS: MIT license, paid Tailwind UI components

Misconception 2: “MIT means anyone can steal my code”

False. MIT requires attribution (copyright notice).

Users must:

• Include your copyright notice in all copies
• Include the full MIT license text
• Not claim they wrote the original code

What users CAN do:

• Use in proprietary products
• Modify without sharing changes
• Sell products containing your code

You still own the copyright. MIT is a license (permission), not a transfer of ownership.

Misconception 3: “MIT has no patent protection”

True. MIT does not include an explicit patent grant (unlike Apache 2.0).

Legal discussion:

• Some legal experts interpret permissive language (“rights to use, copy, modify”) as implying patent rights
• However, this interpretation is not universally agreed upon and not explicitly stated in the license text
• MIT has no patent retaliation clause

If patents matter: Use Apache 2.0 for explicit patent grant and retaliation protection.

Misconception 4: “I can change license later”

Partially true. You can change license for future versions, but existing versions remain under original license.

What you CAN do:

• Release v2.0 under a different license (if you own all copyright)
• Dual-license new versions (MIT + commercial)
• Relicense if all contributors agree (difficult for large projects)

What you CANNOT do:

• Revoke MIT license for already-released versions
• Force users of v1.0 to adopt new license for v2.0
• Change license if contributors haven’t assigned copyright

Example: If you release v1.0 under MIT, someone can fork v1.0 and continue using MIT forever. Your v2.0 can be GPL, but v1.0 remains MIT.

Misconception 5: “MIT protects me from liability”

False. MIT disclaims warranty and liability, but that’s not absolute protection.

MIT’s disclaimer:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND...
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES...

Limitations:

• Disclaimers may not be enforceable in all jurisdictions
• Gross negligence or intentional harm not protected
• Some countries don’t recognize warranty disclaimers

Better protection: Form a legal entity (LLC) to separate personal liability.

How to Make Money with MIT-Licensed Software

The biggest misconception about MIT is that it prevents monetization. In reality, MIT enables multiple revenue models while maintaining open-source credibility. Many successful companies have built sustainable businesses around MIT-licensed software.

Strategy 1: Open Core Model

Concept: Core functionality is MIT-licensed, premium features are proprietary.

How it works:

• Base product: MIT (attracts users, builds community)
• Advanced features: Proprietary (generates revenue)
• Clear value separation: free tier solves 80% of needs, paid tier adds enterprise capabilities

Real-world examples:

GitLab

• MIT Core: Git repository hosting, CI/CD basics, issue tracking
• Paid Tiers: Advanced security, compliance, portfolio management
• Revenue: $583M annual revenue (FY2024), publicly traded (NASDAQ: GTLB)
• Why it works: Developers adopt free version, enterprises upgrade for compliance features

Sentry

• FSL + Apache 2.0 (mixed licensing): Error tracking and monitoring
• Paid Tiers: Team collaboration, SSO, advanced analytics, 24/7 support
• Valuation: $3.8B (2021 Series D), $217M raised
• Note: Uses Functional Source License (FSL) for newer versions, Apache 2.0 for older
• Why it works: Individual developers use free tier, companies pay for scale and support

Grafana Labs

• AGPLv3 (since 2021, previously Apache 2.0): Visualization and dashboards
• Paid Enterprise: Enterprise plugins, support, authentication
• Valuation: $3B (2023 funding round), $720M total raised
• Why it works: Community builds integrations, enterprises pay for operational certainty

When open core works best:

• Clear distinction between community and enterprise features
• Enterprise features don’t alienate community (compliance, not core functionality)
• Free tier solves real problems (attracts users)
• Network effects (more users = more value)

When open core fails:

• Core is too limited (users feel bait-and-switched)
• Premium features should be in core (community frustration)
• Trying to “reclaim” features after making them free

Strategy 2: Dual Licensing

Concept: Offer both MIT (free) and commercial license (paid).

How it works:

• MIT license: For open-source projects and compatible uses
• Commercial license: For customers who need proprietary integration or want to avoid MIT terms
• Same codebase, different license terms

Real-world examples:

MySQL (historically)

• GPL: Free for open-source projects
• Commercial: Paid for proprietary applications that can’t comply with GPL
• Revenue: Billions (Oracle acquisition)
• Why it worked: Companies paid to avoid GPL obligations

Qt Framework

• LGPL: Free for most uses
• Commercial: Paid for static linking or proprietary modifications
• Revenue: Sustainable business for decades
• Why it works: Enterprise prefers paying over legal uncertainty

Ghostwriter (markdown editor)

• GPL: Free for personal use
• Commercial: Paid for closed-source distribution
• Why it works: Developers pay to include in proprietary apps

When dual licensing works best:

• Your MIT code has integration constraints (GPL-incompatible dependencies)
• Customers want legal certainty (pay to avoid open-source obligations)
• You own all copyright (no external contributors, or CLA in place)
• Enterprise customers value vendor relationship over license

Gotcha: Dual licensing MIT is unusual (MIT is already permissive). More common with copyleft licenses (GPL → commercial). For MIT, consider open core instead.

Strategy 3: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Concept: Software is MIT, but hosted service is paid.

How it works:

• Anyone can self-host for free (MIT)
• You charge for convenience of hosted service
• Revenue from hosting, not software itself

Real-world examples:

GitHub

• MIT: Git is open-source (git-scm.com)
• Paid Service: GitHub.com hosting, Actions, advanced features
• Revenue: $1B+ ARR (Microsoft acquisition $7.5B)
• Why it works: Self-hosting Git is possible but GitHub is easier

Vercel

• MIT: Next.js framework
• Paid Service: Deployment platform, edge functions, analytics
• Funding: $313M raised, $2.5B valuation (2021)
• Why it works: Framework adoption drives platform usage

Supabase

• Apache 2.0: Database, auth, storage libraries
• Paid Service: Managed PostgreSQL, hosting, backups
• Funding: $116M raised (as of 2023)
• Why it works: Open-source reduces lock-in fear, hosting generates revenue

PlanetScale

• Apache 2.0: Vitess database (donated to CNCF)
• Paid Service: Managed MySQL-compatible database
• Funding: $105M raised (as of 2023)
• Why it works: Complex infrastructure, customers pay for management

When SaaS works best:

• Software is complex to deploy/maintain
• Hosted version adds significant value (uptime, scaling, backups)
• You have infrastructure expertise
• Usage-based pricing aligns with customer value

Advantages:

• MIT license builds trust (no lock-in)
• Community contributes improvements
• Self-hosters become advocates
• Enterprises pay for support and SLA

Strategy 4: Support and Consulting

Concept: Software is free, expertise is paid.

How it works:

• MIT-licensed software available to everyone
• Charge for training, implementation, customization, support
• Revenue from services, not software

Real-world examples:

Redis Labs (now Redis Inc.)

• BSD 3-Clause (historically): Redis database (license changed to SSPL in 2024)
• Paid Services: Redis Enterprise (hosted), support contracts, training
• Note: Redis changed from BSD to SSPL in 2024, no longer fully open-source
• Why it worked: Redis is complex, enterprises pay for operational certainty

Elastic (before license change)

• Apache 2.0 (until 2021): Elasticsearch, Kibana
• Paid Services: Elastic Cloud, support, training
• Note: Switched to Elastic License 2.0 (proprietary) in 2021
• Why it worked: Search infrastructure is mission-critical, enterprises pay for hosted service

Automattic (WordPress)

• GPL: WordPress core
• Paid Services: WordPress.com hosting, WooCommerce support, enterprise features
• Revenue: $850M+ valuation
• Why it works: WordPress powers 43% of websites, support market is huge

Canonical (Ubuntu)

• Open-source: Ubuntu Linux
• Paid Services: Ubuntu Pro, enterprise support, consulting
• Revenue: Sustainable business for 20+ years
• Why it works: Enterprises pay for support on mission-critical infrastructure

When support/consulting works best:

• Software is complex (databases, infrastructure, frameworks)
• Target market is enterprises (value support contracts)
• You’re the original author/expert (credibility)
• Software requires customization for enterprise use

Service models:

• Support tiers: Email → Phone → 24/7 → Dedicated engineer
• Training: Workshops, certifications, documentation
• Consulting: Implementation, architecture review, optimization
• Managed services: You run it for them

Strategy 5: Sponsorships and Donations

Concept: Software is free, community supports financially.

How it works:

• MIT-licensed software, no paid features
• Users/companies sponsor development through GitHub Sponsors, Patreon, OpenCollective
• Transparency: public roadmap, spending reports

Real-world examples:

Evan You (Vue.js)

• MIT: Vue.js framework
• Funding: Sustainable full-time income via GitHub Sponsors and Patreon
• Why it works: Large community, clear roadmap, trusted maintainer

Sindre Sorhus (open-source maintainer)

• MIT: 1000+ npm packages
• Funding: Full-time income via GitHub Sponsors (specific amount private)
• Why it works: Packages used by millions, community values his work

Babel (JavaScript compiler)

• MIT: Babel transpiler
• Funding: Sustained by OpenCollective with corporate sponsors
• Sponsors: Companies that depend on it (historically Facebook, Airbnb, others)
• Why it works: Critical infrastructure, corporate sponsors

curl (Daniel Stenberg)

• MIT: curl and libcurl
• Revenue: Part-time salary via sponsors (Microsoft, Facebook, others)
• Why it works: Used by billions of devices, critical infrastructure

When sponsorship works best:

• You’re a recognized maintainer (credibility)
• Your project is widely used (dependency for popular projects)
• You’re transparent about goals and spending
• You provide value beyond code (education, community building)

Platforms:

• GitHub Sponsors: Built into GitHub, no fees
• Patreon: Monthly subscriptions, community features
• OpenCollective: Transparent finances, tax-exempt options
• Ko-fi: One-time donations, simple setup

Sponsorship tiers:

• $5-10/month: Individual supporters (recognition)
• $50-100/month: Small companies (logo in README)
• $500-1000/month: Medium companies (logo on website)
• $5000+/month: Enterprise sponsors (dedicated support, roadmap input)

Strategy 6: Delayed Open Source

Concept: New versions are proprietary initially, become MIT later.

How it works:

• Latest version (v2.0): Proprietary, paid
• Previous version (v1.0): MIT, free after 6-12 months
• Customers pay for cutting-edge features

Real-world examples:

Sidekiq Pro/Enterprise

• LGPL: Sidekiq (background jobs)
• Paid: Pro/Enterprise features as commercial licenses
• Business Model: Sustainable solo-developer business
• Why it works: Enterprises pay for latest features, individuals use free version

Plausible Analytics

• Source-available: Self-hosted version (delayed release)
• Paid: Latest version hosted + support
• Why it works: Balances open-source ethos with sustainability

When delayed open source works best:

• Rapid development cycle (new features regularly)
• Enterprise customers value cutting-edge (pay for early access)
• You’re comfortable with version fragmentation
• Older versions still provide value (don’t become obsolete)

Hybrid Models: Combining Strategies

Most successful companies combine multiple strategies:

Vercel (SaaS + Open Core + Consulting)

• MIT: Next.js framework
• Paid: Vercel hosting platform
• Enterprise: Custom contracts, consulting

GitLab (Open Core + Support + Training)

• MIT: Core features
• Paid: Premium tiers, support contracts
• Services: Training, professional services

Sentry (Open Core + SaaS + Support)

• MIT: Core error tracking
• Paid: Hosted service, team features
• Enterprise: Support, on-premise deployment

Key Success Factors

Regardless of model, successful MIT-licensed businesses share:

1. Clear value proposition: Free tier solves real problems
2. Natural upgrade path: Paid tier is obvious next step for growth
3. Community trust: Transparent about business model
4. Product-led growth: Software sells itself
5. Align incentives: Revenue comes from those who get most value

Common Pitfalls

Don’t:

• Bait-and-switch (making popular features paid later)
• Alienate community (taking without giving back)
• Compete with your users (offering same paid services)
• Neglect free tier (users become advocates)

Do:

• Be transparent about business model from start
• Invest in community (documentation, support)
• Maintain clear boundaries (free vs paid)
• Respect the license (don’t try to claw back rights)

How to Apply MIT License

1. Create LICENSE file

File: LICENSE or LICENSE.txt in project root

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2025 Your Name

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

Replace:

• [year] → Current year (e.g., 2025)
• [fullname] → Your name or company name

2. Add to README

1
2
3

## License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the [LICENSE](LICENSE) file for details.

3. Add SPDX identifier to source files (optional but recommended)

Top of each source file:

1

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

1

# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

1

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

Benefits:

• Machine-readable license identification
• Automated compliance scanning
• Clear per-file licensing

4. Dual Licensing Option (Advanced)

If you want to provide flexibility for users with different needs, you can dual-license under both MIT and Apache 2.0:

Project structure:

your-project/
├── LICENSE-MIT
├── LICENSE-APACHE
└── README.md

README.md:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

## License

Licensed under either of:

- Apache License, Version 2.0 ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE))
- MIT License ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT))

at your option.

Package manager format (Cargo.toml for Rust):

1
2
3
4

[package]
name = "your-project"
version = "1.0.0"
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

Why dual-license MIT OR Apache 2.0:

• MIT: For users who want simplicity and maximum compatibility
• Apache 2.0: For users who need explicit patent protection
• Users choose: They pick whichever license fits their needs
• Common in Rust ecosystem: Rust language itself and most Rust crates use this pattern

Real-world examples:

• Rust language: MIT OR Apache 2.0
• Tokio (async runtime): MIT OR Apache 2.0
• Serde (serialization): MIT OR Apache 2.0
• Most Rust crates follow this pattern

Benefits:

• Accommodates corporate legal departments that require patent grants
• Maintains simplicity for users who prefer MIT
• No version bumps needed if someone has license concerns
• Broader adoption potential

Requirements:

• You must own all copyright
• Contributors must agree to dual licensing (use Contributor License Agreement if needed)
• Both licenses must be included in distributions

Note on license changes:

You cannot retroactively change licenses for already-released versions. If you release v1.0 under MIT, that version remains MIT forever (anyone can fork and continue using it under MIT). You can release v2.0 under a different license, but users can choose to stay on v1.0.

Dual licensing from the start prevents this problem - users pick their preferred license without you needing version changes.

5. GitHub automation

GitHub automatically detects LICENSE file and shows license badge.

Package managers also detect:

• npm: Reads license field in package.json
• cargo: Reads license field in Cargo.toml
• pip: Reads license field in setup.py or pyproject.toml

Example (package.json):

1
2
3
4
5

{
  "name": "my-package",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "license": "MIT"
}

Example for dual licensing (Cargo.toml):

1
2

[package]
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

When NOT to Use MIT

1. You Want Derivatives to Remain Open-Source

Problem: MIT allows closed-source forks.

Example: Company takes your MIT code, adds features, sells closed-source product, never contributes back.

Solution: Use GPL or AGPL instead.

2. You Have Patents You Want to Protect

Problem: MIT has no explicit patent grant or retaliation clause.

Example: Someone uses your code, then sues you for patent infringement.

Solution: Use Apache 2.0 (explicit patent grant + retaliation).

3. You Want to Prevent Cloud Providers from Offering Your Software

Problem: AWS/GCP can offer your MIT software as a managed service without contributing.

Example: MongoDB was AGPL, but AWS offered DocumentDB (compatible API) without open-sourcing.

Solution: Use SSPL or proprietary license (but loses open-source benefits).

4. You Want Stronger Trademark Protection

Problem: MIT doesn’t explicitly protect trademarks.

Example: Someone uses your code and claims it’s the “official” version.

Solution: Use Apache 2.0 (explicit trademark exclusion) or add separate trademark policy.

5. Your Project is a Critical Infrastructure Component

Problem: If your project becomes critical (like OpenSSL or Log4j), MIT provides no mechanism to ensure security updates.

Example: Heartbleed bug in OpenSSL (BSD license) took months to fix due to under-resourcing.

Solution: Consider dual-licensing or corporate backing before becoming critical infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use MIT-licensed code in my commercial product?

Yes. That’s the point of MIT. You can use it in proprietary, closed-source, commercial products.

Requirement: Include the copyright notice and MIT license text (usually in “About” or “Licenses” section).

Do I need to share my modifications to MIT code?

No. MIT does not require sharing modifications.

Recommendation: Contributing back benefits everyone, but it’s not legally required.

Can I change the license of MIT code I download?

No. You cannot change the license of someone else’s code.

What you CAN do: Release your modifications under a different license, but the original MIT code remains MIT.

Can I mix MIT and GPL code?

Yes, but the result must be GPL.

• MIT code can be incorporated into GPL projects
• GPL code CANNOT be incorporated into MIT projects
• The “stronger” license (GPL) wins

What if I contribute to an MIT project?

Your contributions are also MIT (unless explicitly stated otherwise).

Copyright: You retain copyright on your contributions, but grant MIT license to the project.

Contributor License Agreements (CLAs): Some projects require signing CLA before contributing (transfers copyright to project owner).

Can I sell MIT-licensed software?

Yes. You can sell binaries, charge for downloads, offer paid support, etc.

Anyone else can too: They can also sell it, offer it for free, or fork it.

Do I need a lawyer to use MIT?

No. MIT is designed to be simple enough for developers to understand.

When you MIGHT need a lawyer:

• You’re making licensing decisions for a company
• You’re mixing multiple licenses
• You have patent concerns
• You’re dealing with international distribution

Conclusion: Should You Choose MIT?

Choose MIT if:

• You want maximum adoption and minimal friction
• You’re okay with proprietary use of your code
• You want the simplest possible license
• You value corporate acceptance
• You don’t have patent concerns
• You want to focus on code, not licensing

Choose something else if:

• You want derivatives to stay open-source → GPL/AGPL
• You have patents to protect → Apache 2.0
• You want to prevent cloud provider exploitation → AGPL or SSPL
• You don’t want any restrictions at all → Unlicense
• You want to prevent endorsement claims → BSD 3-Clause

The MIT License’s popularity isn’t accidental - it strikes the right balance between protecting contributors and enabling users. Choose it when simplicity and adoption matter more than enforcement.

Further Reading

Official Resources:

• MIT License Template
• Choose a License - GitHub’s license selector
• SPDX License List - Complete list of standardized licenses
• Open Source Initiative - OSI-approved licenses

License Comparisons:

• TLDRLegal - Plain English license explanations
• Comparison of Free Software Licenses - Wikipedia

Deep Dives:

• Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams - History of free software movement
• The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond - Open source development models
• GPL FAQ - GNU’s detailed GPL explanation

Legal Perspectives:

• Heather Meeker’s Open Source Law Blog
• Kyle Mitchell’s Blog - Developer-focused license analysis