I am building a javascript application that will be sold commercially with a non-free EULA. I used small sections of code from an MIT licensed project, so I understand I need to include the MIT license text in a LICENSE file. But how can anybody tell which sections are covered under that license and which sections are my own? I have not used any full classes, only small snippets scattered all throughout the code. Maybe this means my usage is not "substantial" and therefore the license does not need to be included, I just wanted to err on the side of caution. Due to the nature of javascript, the source code will be distributed, but I will include a LICENSE file, something like:

This is proprietary software.
Copyright (C) 2020 <my name>
All rights reserved.  No warranty, explicit or implicit, provided.
Unauthorized copying of this software is strictly prohibited.

This software uses portions of code under MIT license as shown below.
  • 1
    The MIT licence requires that you include the text of the licence, but it doesn't require that any reused code actually be under that licence. That given, are you minded to edit your question at all? – MadHatter Sep 8 at 7:36
  • If I include the MIT license text verbatim with no explanation, anybody reading it would assume my whole project is licensed as such. So I think there must be some sort of description of which parts it applies to. – Elliott B Sep 9 at 5:35
  • I think you may be missing my point. You write that you "understand I need to include the MIT license text in a LICENSE file", which is true, but you go on to ask how to indicate "which sections are covered under that license and which sections are my own". My point is that although you must include the licence text, it doesn't have to apply to any of the code you've copied. That can be under any licence you like, so long as the requirements of the MIT licence are met. – MadHatter Sep 9 at 5:40
  • Ok thanks, I didn't get that before. So there still must be some explanation to state that this is merely a block of text, and it doesn't actually apply as a license. I guess the license I wrote in the question above sort of works then. – Elliott B Sep 9 at 5:44
  • 2
    I agree! Though you could be even clearer, perhaps including a licence file that is headed "This file is included for reasons of compliance. The terms herein to do not apply to any portion of the received code." I could write that up as an answer, if it in fact deals with the question you were asking. – MadHatter Sep 9 at 5:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.