Same practical outcome for shipping. The difference is patents and NOTICE, not disclosure.
For every way of shipping software, MIT and Apache-2.0 reach the same verdict. Whatever separates them, it is not the obligation to disclose source. Read each license's own page for what else differs — patent grants and notice requirements are the usual answer.
Runtime dependency, dynamically linked. A build-time-only dependency reaches no user and carries no distribution obligation, whichever license it uses.
| How you ship | MIT | Apache-2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | No obligation | Same |
| Distributed binary | No obligation | No obligation | Same |
| On-premises delivery | No obligation | No obligation | Same |
| Internal use only | No obligation | No obligation | Same |
| Published library | No obligation | No obligation | Same |
The most widely used permissive license. It grants nearly unrestricted use in exchange for keeping the copyright notice and license text with the software. There is no source-disclosure requirement and no patent clause.
Permissive, but with two things MIT lacks: an explicit patent grant from contributors, and a requirement to carry forward any NOTICE file. Companies wary of patent exposure often prefer it over MIT for that reason.
Full obligations for Apache-2.0
Want to know which of these your project actually depends on?
Check your whole manifest →LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.
Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).