MIT License (English Wikipedia)

"Top 20 licenses". Black Duck Software. November 19, 2015. Archived from the original on September 4, 2013. Retrieved November 19, 2015. 1. MIT license 24%, 2. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 23%

choosealicense.com

"MIT License". ChooseALicense.com. GitHub. September 5, 2022.

debian.org

"License information". The Debian Project. Software in the Public Interest (published July 12, 2017). 1997–2017. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This page presents the opinion of some debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). ... Licenses currently found in Debian main include: ... Expat/MIT-style licenses ...

doi.org

Saltzer, Jerome H (November 18, 2020). "The origin of the "MIT license"". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 42 (4): 94–98. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2020.3020234. ISSN 1934-1547.

europa.eu

joinup.ec.europa.eu

"Licence Compatibility and Interoperability". Open-Source Software. Joinup. Archived from the original on June 17, 2015. Retrieved May 30, 2015. The licences for distributing free or open source software (FOSS) are divided in two families: permissive and copyleft. Permissive licences (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache, Zope) are generally compatible and interoperable with most other licences, tolerating to merge, combine or improve the covered code and to re-distribute it under many licences (including non-free or "proprietary").

fsfe.org

"Patents and GPLv3 - FSFE". FSFE - Free Software Foundation Europe. Retrieved December 1, 2020.

github.com

Balter, Ben (March 9, 2015). "Open source license usage on GitHub.com". The GitHub Blog. Retrieved November 21, 2015. 1 MIT 44.69%, 2 Other 15.68%

innovationgraph.github.com

"GitHub Innovation Graph". innovationgraph.github.com. Retrieved January 8, 2025.

docs.github.com

"Licensing a repository". GitHub Docs.

gnu.org

"Various Licenses and Comments about Them". The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (published April 4, 2017). 2014–2017. Expat License. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License.
"Various Licenses and Comments about Them". The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (published April 4, 2017). 2014–2017. X11 License. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. ... This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.

invisible-island.net

Dickey, Thomas E. "Copyrights/comments". Retrieved October 6, 2020.
Dickey, Thomas E. "NCURSES — Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

kemitchell.com

writing.kemitchell.com

"The MIT License, Line by Line". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.

marc.info

de Raadt, Theo (March 21, 2008). "Re: BSD Documentation License?". openbsd-misc (Mailing list).

mit.edu

tlo.mit.edu

"FFTW - Fastest Fourier Transform in the West". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved July 17, 2020.

openbsd.org

"Copyright Policy". OpenBSD. Retrieved June 6, 2016. The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention.

opensource.com

Haff, Gordon. "The mysterious history of the MIT License". opensource.com. Retrieved July 30, 2019. The date? The best single answer is probably 1987. But the complete story is more complicated and even a little mysterious. [...] Precursors from 1985. The X Consortium or X11 License variant from 1987. Or the Expat License from 1998 or 1999.
Hanwell, Marcus D. (January 28, 2014). "Should I use a permissive license? Copyleft? Or something in the middle?". opensource.com. Retrieved May 30, 2015. Permissive licensing simplifies things One reason the business world, and more and more developers [...], favor permissive licenses is in the simplicity of reuse. The license usually only pertains to the source code that is licensed and makes no attempt to infer any conditions upon any other component, and because of this there is no need to define what constitutes a derived work. I have also never seen a license compatibility chart for permissive licenses; it seems that they are all compatible.
"Why so little love for the patent grant in the MIT License?". January 23, 2021. Archived from the original on January 23, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.

opensource.org

"Licenses by Name". Open Source Initiative. n.d. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. The following licenses have been approved by the OSI. ... MIT License (MIT) ...
"The MIT License". Open Source Initiative. Retrieved December 5, 2010.

lists.opensource.org

Chestek, Pamela (August 5, 2020). "[License-review] Request for Legacy Approval of MIT No Attribution License".
Langel, Tobie (May 15, 2020). "[License-review] Request for Legacy Approval of MIT No Attribution License".

oss-watch.ac.uk

"Free and open source software and your patents". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.

pli.edu

download.pli.edu

Christian H. Nadan (2009), "Closing the Loophole: Open Source Licensing & the Implied Patent License", The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 26 (8), Aspen Law & Business, By using patent terms like "deal in", "use", and "sell", the MIT license grant is more likely to be deemed to include express patent rights than the BSD license.

spdx.org

"SPDX License List". spdx.org. SPDX Working Group.
"MIT License". SPDX. Archived from the original on May 8, 2024.
"X11 License". spdx.org. SPDX Working Group.
"MIT No Attribution". spdx.org. SPDX Working Group.

stackexchange.com

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com

"Paid software includes MIT licensed library, does that put my app under MIT too?". Software Engineering Stack Exchange. Retrieved July 21, 2021.

tldrlegal.com

"MIT License Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal". tldrlegal.com. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
"X11 License Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal". tldrlegal.com. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved March 26, 2021.

web.archive.org

"License information". The Debian Project. Software in the Public Interest (published July 12, 2017). 1997–2017. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This page presents the opinion of some debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). ... Licenses currently found in Debian main include: ... Expat/MIT-style licenses ...
"Various Licenses and Comments about Them". The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (published April 4, 2017). 2014–2017. Expat License. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License.
"Various Licenses and Comments about Them". The GNU Project. Free Software Foundation (published April 4, 2017). 2014–2017. X11 License. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. ... This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.
"Licenses by Name". Open Source Initiative. n.d. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. The following licenses have been approved by the OSI. ... MIT License (MIT) ...
"Licence Compatibility and Interoperability". Open-Source Software. Joinup. Archived from the original on June 17, 2015. Retrieved May 30, 2015. The licences for distributing free or open source software (FOSS) are divided in two families: permissive and copyleft. Permissive licences (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache, Zope) are generally compatible and interoperable with most other licences, tolerating to merge, combine or improve the covered code and to re-distribute it under many licences (including non-free or "proprietary").
"MIT License". SPDX. Archived from the original on May 8, 2024.
"X11 License Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal". tldrlegal.com. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
"To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD". University of California, Berkeley. July 22, 1999. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2006.
"Why so little love for the patent grant in the MIT License?". January 23, 2021. Archived from the original on January 23, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
"Free and open source software and your patents". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.
"The MIT License, Line by Line". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.
"Open Source Licenses in 2020: Trends and Predictions". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.
"Top 20 licenses". Black Duck Software. November 19, 2015. Archived from the original on September 4, 2013. Retrieved November 19, 2015. 1. MIT license 24%, 2. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 23%

whitesourcesoftware.com

resources.whitesourcesoftware.com

"Open Source Licenses in 2020: Trends and Predictions". May 3, 2020. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2020.

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

Rosen, Lawrence E. (2005). Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR. ISBN 0-13-148787-6. OCLC 56012651.
Saltzer, Jerome H (November 18, 2020). "The origin of the "MIT license"". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 42 (4): 94–98. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2020.3020234. ISSN 1934-1547.

worldcat.org

Rosen, Lawrence E. (2005). Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR. ISBN 0-13-148787-6. OCLC 56012651.

x.org

"Licenses". X.Org Foundation.

xfree86.org

"3.3. X Consortium", 3. X/MIT Licenses, The XFree86 Project, March 2004