The MIT License, developed in the late 1980s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has become one of the most widely used open-source licenses. Its creators aimed to craft a simple, permissive license to encourage collaboration and widespread adoption. It’s known for empowering developers to modify, use, and distribute software for nearly any purpose with few restrictions.
In this article, we’ll explain the creation of the MIT License, its key rules, and why many developers and companies choose it. We’ll also look at how a software bill of materials (SBOM) fits into the picture and explore how software composition analysis (SCA) tools help keep code secure and compliant. Let’s get started.
The rise of open-source licensing
Unlike traditional proprietary software licenses, which often restrict usage, require payment, and limit redistribution, open-source licenses offer extensive freedoms. For example, pioneering efforts like the GNU Project (1983) and the Linux kernel (1991), shared code freely, driving rapid advancements in software.
As businesses began integrating open-source code into their products, the need for clear licensing became evident. Without it, companies risked legal challenges. One example? The 2000s SCO Group vs. IBM lawsuit over alleged Linux copyright issues, which highlighted the importance of explicit usage terms.
Open-source licenses protect creators’ rights by ensuring credit via copyright notices and setting clear conditions for use and distribution, fostering trust and collaboration. Today, open-source software powers everything from individual projects to enterprise-level applications, making license compliance a critical concern.
Open-source software has changed how we create, share, and maintain software code. By setting clear guidelines, open-source licenses help developers understand what they can and cannot do with software.
Key principles of the MIT License
The MIT License is built on two basic principles:
Freedom and flexibility: The MIT License lets you use the software for any objective—personal, academic, or commercial—with minimal rules.
Simplicity in legal terms: Its concise language means that even those without legal expertise can understand their rights and responsibilities. In short, every time you use or share MIT-licensed code, you must include the original copyright notice and the license text. This lets everyone know who created the code and what the rules for using it are. (Remember: Neglecting to include the required copyright notice can lead to legal risks, such as infringement claims or reputational damage within the open-source community.)
It’s often said that “with the MIT License, you simply keep the notice and move on.” The result? A perfect match for the fast-paced and collaborative nature of modern software development.
Why is the MIT License so popular?
In 2023, the MIT License was the most-used license for major package managers. That year, more than 63% of components for Gem used the MIT License, and more than 50% of components for the npm package manager did too. So how did it reach such high adoption?
The MIT License is popular for several reasons. First, its simplicity lowers the barrier to entry. Small teams and individual developers can use it without needing to deal with complex legal jargon. Developers prefer not to get bogged down in legal details, and the MIT License allows them to focus on what matters most: writing and improving code. At the same time, larger companies appreciate that they can integrate MIT-Licensed code into their proprietary software.
There's no requirement to open up proprietary code or share modifications publicly, which makes it a safe choice for commercial projects. While the MIT License allows proprietary software to incorporate MIT-Licensed code without restrictions, it differs from copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL, which require any modified code to be relicensed under the same terms.
Here’s a quick comparison of how MIT, GPL, and Apache 2.0 handle licensing in proprietary software:
The MIT License is ideal for commercial use because it imposes no sharing requirements.
The Apache 2.0 License adds patent protection, making it preferable in IP-sensitive projects.
The GPL License requires all modifications to be open source, which is useful for community-driven projects but not ideal for proprietary software.
Examples of MIT-Licensed projects
React: Originally created by Facebook, React is a leading JavaScript library for building dynamic user interfaces. Its MIT Licensing has paved the way for widespread adoption across diverse web development projects.
Vue.js: This progressive JavaScript framework has rapidly grown in popularity due to its ease of integration and flexibility, qualities that are well-supported by its MIT-Licensing model.
jQuery: One of the pioneering libraries in simplifying JavaScript for web development, jQuery’s MIT License has made it an enduring choice for developers across multiple generations of web projects.
Bootstrap: As a widely used front-end framework for developing responsive and mobile-first websites, Bootstrap’s MIT License encourages broad adoption and customization in diverse projects.
Express.js: This minimal and flexible Node.js web application framework benefits from the MIT License, enabling rapid development of robust web servers and APIs without cumbersome legal requirements.
These projects show how the MIT License promotes a culture of innovation and collaboration, helping both startups and large enterprises integrate open-source tools into their development processes.
The State of Code Security Report [2025]
Code security isn’t just about vulnerability scanning—repository misconfigurations and secrets exposure remain some of the biggest risks. The State of Code Security Report 2025 found that 61% of organizations have secrets exposed in public repositories, and 80% of GitHub workflows have insecure permissions
Read more
Comparing the MIT License to other popular licenses
Apache License 2.0
Strengths & use cases: Like the MIT License, Apache 2.0 is permissive, but it goes a step further by including an explicit patent grant. Apache 2.0 explicitly grants a royalty-free patent license to users, meaning contributors cannot later assert patent claims against derivative works. For companies working with patent-heavy software—such as AI algorithms, cryptographic techniques, or networking protocols—Apache 2.0 may be a safer choice to reduce litigation risks.
The MIT License, on the other hand, does not include an explicit patent grant. While courts generally interpret it as allowing patent usage, the lack of explicit protections means companies may face greater uncertainty in patent-heavy industries.
Examples: Many enterprise projects and cloud platforms adopt Apache 2.0 for its additional legal protections.
GNU General Public License (GPL)
Copyleft and community focus: In contrast to the flexible MIT License, the GPL mandates that any adaptations or enhancements of the software must also be released as open source under the same GPL terms.
When to use it: This license is ideal for projects that aim to keep improvements within the open-source ecosystem, such as community-driven software like the Linux kernel.
BSD licenses
Variations & specifics: While similar in spirit to the MIT License, BSD licenses come in several flavors (e.g., the original BSD, the modified BSD, and the simplified BSD), with subtle differences in requirements.
Use cases & examples: BSD licenses deliver a level of freedom that’s comparable to the MIT License, but they offer distinct options, such as the 2-Clause BSD’s streamlined requirements or the 3-Clause BSD’s added restriction against using the creator’s name for endorsement, all of which cater to specific development scenarios.
Who should use the MIT License?
The MIT License's permissive nature makes it ideal for certain projects and teams, but less suitable for others. Consider the following scenarios to determine if the MIT License aligns with your goals:
The MIT License is ideal for…
Library and framework developers: If you're creating code designed to be integrated into larger projects, the MIT License encourages adoption by removing barriers to incorporation. Libraries like React and jQuery benefit from MIT Licensing because it allows for both commercial and non-commercial projects and doesn’t have complex legal requirements.
Startups and early-stage projects: For startups looking to gain traction and build a user base, the MIT License offers an attractive balance. It protects your copyright while letting others freely use your code, potentially increasing adoption and community engagement without limiting future monetization options.
Educational and reference projects: Academic tools, coding examples, and reference implementations benefit from MIT Licensing by enabling widespread use in educational contexts while still maintaining attribution to the original authors.
Commercial companies contributing to open source: When enterprises want to release internal tools publicly without compromising their business interests, the MIT License allows them to contribute to the open-source ecosystem while retaining the ability to use the same code in proprietary products.
The MIT License is less suitable for…
Projects that require all modifications to remain open source: If your primary goal is ensuring that all derivatives of your code remain freely available to everyone, a copyleft license like GPL would be more appropriate than MIT. The MIT License doesn't prevent others from taking your code and incorporating it into closed-source applications, which may conflict with your project's goals.
Projects with significant patent concerns: Companies developing patent-heavy technologies (such as AI algorithms, cryptography methods, or networking protocols) often favor Apache 2.0 over MIT because it includes explicit patent grants and protection. For example, Google's Kubernetes project uses Apache 2.0 licensing specifically to address patent considerations that the MIT License leaves unspecified.
SaaS providers with core technology concerns: SaaS providers often have nuanced licensing needs. Many use MIT for frontend/UI components while keeping backend technology proprietary. If you're developing a SaaS application where the code itself represents your core value proposition, you might consider the GNU AGPL (Affero GPL) instead. Alternatively, a dual-licensing approach might be preferable for commercial flexibility.
MIT License implementation: Practical guidelines
Where to place MIT License text
For source code repositories
Include the full license text in a file named
LICENSEorLICENSE.txtat the root of your repository.Add a shorter license notice at the top of important source code files, especially public APIs or widely shared libraries, for example:
// Copyright (c) [Year] [Copyright Holder]
//
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
// of this software and associated documentation files…
// [or "Licensed under the MIT License - see LICENSE file for details"]For binary distributions
Include the full license text in documentation that accompanies the binary (e.g., in a "Licenses" or "Legal" folder).
For desktop applications, include the license in an "About" or "Legal" section accessible from the UI.
For mobile apps, include MIT License text in the settings or legal information screens.
For web applications
Include license information in a JavaScript comment at the top of minified files.
Add license details to a dedicated
/licensespage or in the website footer.Consider adding a "Third-Party Licenses" section in your site's legal documentation.
For documentation and wikis
Add license information to README.md files (for GitHub or similar platforms).
Include attribution in a "Credits" or "Acknowledgments" section.
Proper attribution format
An effective MIT License attribution typically includes:
The copyright notice from the original code
The full license text (or a link to it if space is constrained)
A clear indication of which components are covered by the license
Here’s an example for a bundled JavaScript library:
/*!
* React v17.0.2
* Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates.
* License: MIT (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/main/LICENSE)
*/Handling modified MIT-Licensed code
When you modify MIT-Licensed code:
Maintain the original copyright notice.
You may add your own copyright notice for your modifications.
Clearly indicate what portions contain your modifications.
The entire work, including your modifications, remains under the MIT License.
License compatibility considerations
When combining MIT-Licensed code with other licenses:
MIT-Licensed code can be included in proprietary software without issues.
MIT-Licensed code can be combined with most other open-source licenses.
When incorporating MIT-Licensed code into a GPL-licensed project:
If the MIT-Licensed code is modified and integrated directly into the codebase, the entire project must be distributed under GPL.
If the MIT-Licensed code is used as a separate, unmodified dependency (e.g., a dynamically linked library), it can remain under the MIT License.
Ensuring license compliance with SCA tools
As open-source adoption grows, compliance and security risks become major concerns—especially for enterprises. Organizations must track not only which licenses they use but also whether dependencies introduce security vulnerabilities.
Ensuring compliance with open-source licenses like MIT is critical—especially as software projects scale. This is where tools like Wiz Code come into play, simplifying compliance checks and automating software security analysis.
For example, tools can seamlessly integrate SCA into your development workflow and generate an SBOM (more on that in the next section). They can also play a crucial role in preserving license integrity across your project by ensuring that the original copyright notice is maintained in every dependency. This process helps avoid hidden license conflicts or omissions that might otherwise slip through manual reviews.
By continuously checking that every component includes the required licensing information, SCA tools help you stay compliant with the legal terms of software licenses and maintain a clean codebase. In doing so, developers and security teams can focus on writing and improving code with the peace of mind that all open-source components are under control and properly documented.
The role of a software bill of materials (SBOM)
As software projects become more complex, they often include hundreds of open-source components. An SBOM is essentially a comprehensive inventory that details every component used in your software, including critical metadata like version numbers, licensing information, and known vulnerabilities. Here’s why an SBOM is indispensable:
Tracking dependencies: An SBOM gives you a detailed map of all libraries, modules, and packages in your project. This transparency helps teams quickly identify what’s included, making it easier to manage updates and address potential issues when dependencies change.
Ensuring compliance: With an up-to-date SBOM, you have a complete record of each component’s license, which simplifies verifying that every part meets required licensing rules. This proactive documentation minimizes the risk of inadvertently using components in violation of their terms, helping you avoid legal complications.
Enhancing security: By maintaining an accurate inventory of all components, an SBOM enables you to rapidly pinpoint which parts may be affected by newly discovered vulnerabilities. This quick identification supports faster remediation and keeps your overall security posture strong.
Making the most of MIT Licenses with Wiz Code
The MIT License’s straightforward approach and adaptability have cemented its status as a pillar of open-source software, offering developers freedom while ensuring creators receive due credit. Pairing it with a tool like Wiz Code takes its advantages to the next level by embedding robust compliance and security into your workflow.
Wiz Code is a powerful ally for developers and security teams alike. It dives deep into your codebase, scanning for every open-source component. It then cross-references these against a vast database to flag vulnerabilities (such as outdated libraries prone to exploits) and license risks (like missing MIT copyright notices that could jeopardize compliance).
Beyond detection, Wiz Code generates detailed software bills of materials (SBOMs) on demand, giving you a clear, exportable breakdown of your project’s components, licenses, and security status.
What makes Wiz Code valuable for teams managing license compliance? Its proactive approach. It integrates seamlessly into your development pipeline, offering real-time alerts during the coding, building, and deployment stages. For example, if a newly added dependency introduces a severe vulnerability or a licensing conflict, Wiz Code notifies you instantly, letting you address it before it becomes a liability.
It also tracks transitive dependencies—those hidden layers of code that often go unnoticed—ensuring nothing slips through the cracks. For teams managing large-scale projects, this automation saves countless hours of manual review while bolstering confidence in the software’s integrity.
Together, the MIT License and Wiz Code are a powerhouse: The license provides the freedom to innovate, and Wiz Code ensures that innovation is secure and legally sound from start to finish. Curious about how it works in practice? Schedule a demo to see Wiz Code in action.