MIT · Permissive
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.
The same license produces different obligations depending on whether the software is distributed, hosted, or kept internal. This is the distinction most dependency scanners collapse.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Published library | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
Attribution
As a build-time dependency it is a different question.
MIT appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
Want to know whether anything in your project is under MIT?
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.