MIT vs Apache 2.0 License: Key Differences for Software Buyers and Developers
Every open source component comes with a license that sets the terms for using it. Two widely used permissive licenses are the MIT License and the Apache License 2.0. They share the same basic spirit, which is that you may use the code for almost any purpose, but they differ in length, in what they ask of you, and in how they handle patents.
This article is general information, not legal advice. License terms have legal consequences that depend on your situation, your jurisdiction and how you use the software. If a license choice matters to your business, such as when you ship a product, sell software or accept contributions, ask a qualified lawyer to review the actual license text.
What "permissive" means
A permissive license lets you use, copy, modify and distribute the software, including inside commercial and closed-source products, in return for meeting a small number of conditions. This contrasts with copyleft licenses such as the GNU General Public License, which attach stronger conditions to redistributed code. We return to that contrast at the end.
The MIT License at a glance
The MIT License is known for being short and simple. According to the summary on choosealicense.com, a site curated by GitHub, Inc. and contributors to help people compare licenses:
- Permissions: commercial use, distribution, modification and private use.
- Conditions: preserve the license and copyright notices.
- Limitations: the license disclaims liability and disclaims warranties.
In practice, that means that if you include MIT-licensed code in your product, you keep the original copyright notice and the license text with it. You do not have to publish your own source code, and you do not have to use the same license for your own work. The software comes as-is, so the authors do not promise it works for your purpose and are not liable for problems it causes.
The Apache License 2.0 at a glance
The Apache License 2.0 is longer and more detailed. The choosealicense.com summary lists:
- Permissions: commercial use, distribution, modification, patent use and private use.
- Conditions: include the license and copyright notice, and state changes you make.
- Limitations: no liability, no warranty, and no trademark rights.
The license text adds specifics on each of those points:
- Notices. Recipients of your distributed work must get a copy of the license, and you must keep the copyright, patent, trademark and attribution notices in the source form of derivative works you distribute (Section 4).
- State changes. Modified files must carry prominent notices saying that you changed them (Section 4(b)).
- NOTICE file. If the original work includes a NOTICE file, derivative works you distribute must include a readable copy of its attribution notices in at least one of the places the license specifies. The contents of a NOTICE file are informational and do not modify the license (Section 4(d)).
- Trademarks. The license does not give you permission to use the licensor's trade names or trademarks, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file (Section 6).
- Warranty. The work is provided on an "AS IS" basis without warranties or conditions (Section 7).
- Liability. Contributors are generally not liable for damages arising from the license or from use of the work (Section 8).
The patent grant: the biggest practical difference
Among the differences between the two licenses, the patent language is a major one. Apache 2.0 includes an explicit patent license. Under Section 3, each contributor grants a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license covering their contributions. The same section includes a termination clause: if you sue an entity alleging that the work infringes a patent, the patent license for that work ends for you.
The choosealicense.com summary for MIT lists no patent-use permission, and the MIT License text does not mention patents at all. What that means legally for your situation is a point to raise with counsel rather than settle by assumption. Apache 2.0, by contrast, spells the grant out.
Side-by-side comparison
| Topic | MIT | Apache 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial use | Permitted | Permitted |
| Modification and distribution | Permitted | Permitted |
| Private use | Permitted | Permitted |
| Explicit patent permission | Not listed in the choosealicense summary | Permitted, with an express patent grant (Section 3) |
| Keep license and copyright notices | Required | Required |
| State changes to modified files | Not listed | Required |
| NOTICE file handling | Not applicable | Required if the original includes one |
| Trademark rights | Not listed as a limitation in the summary | Not granted (Section 6) |
| Warranty and liability | Disclaimed | Disclaimed |
| Length and complexity | Short | Longer, more detailed |
When teams tend to choose each one
These are common tendencies, not rules:
- MIT appeals to maintainers who want the least friction. A short text is easy for a small team to read and for downstream users to comply with: keep the notice, and you are done.
- Apache 2.0 appeals to projects that want explicit patent terms, clear handling of attribution, and a documented trademark position. The additional conditions, such as noting changes, are the price of that clarity.
If you are a buyer or integrator rather than an author, the question is usually less about which you prefer and more about whether you can meet the conditions. Both licenses are compatible with commercial products. Your job is to make sure the required notices actually ship with your product and, for Apache-licensed components with a NOTICE file, that the attribution notices are included.
How GPL-3.0 differs
For contrast, the choosealicense.com summary for the GNU GPL v3.0 lists the same core permissions (commercial use, distribution, modification, patent use, private use) but a different set of conditions: disclose source, include the license and copyright notice, use the same license, and state changes. The site describes the GPL as a strong copyleft license whose permissions are conditioned on making complete source code of licensed works and modifications available. That is why a team building proprietary software has to look much more carefully at GPL components than at MIT or Apache ones.
A practical checklist for using open source components
- Inventory your dependencies. Know which licenses apply to the code you ship. Package manifests and license files in each repository are the starting point.
- Keep the notices. For both MIT and Apache 2.0, preserve copyright and license text in what you distribute. Many teams generate a third-party notices file as part of their release process.
- Track modifications. If you change Apache-licensed files, mark the changes. Doing it in version control and release notes makes this easy.
- Check for NOTICE files. Apache-licensed projects may ship one, and its contents may need to travel with your distribution.
- Do not assume a license from a badge or README. Read the LICENSE file in the version you are actually using, because a project's license can change between releases.
- Ask counsel for high-stakes decisions. Selling software, embedding components in a hardware product, or accepting outside contributions are the times to get a legal review.
Summary
The MIT License and Apache License 2.0 both let you use open source code commercially if you preserve the required notices and accept that the software comes without warranty. MIT is shorter and asks little. Apache 2.0 is more detailed: it adds an explicit patent grant, a requirement to state changes, a NOTICE file mechanism and a clear statement that trademarks are not licensed. Copyleft licenses such as GPL-3.0 sit in a different category because they condition redistribution on sharing source. Use this comparison to orient yourself, then confirm the details against the license text and, where it matters, with a lawyer.
Sources
- Choose a License, MIT License summary: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/
- Choose a License, Apache License 2.0 summary and full text sections: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/
- Choose a License, GNU GPL v3.0 summary: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/