Using open source licenses while not disclosing internal architecture

Question

I am close to release of a webapp, and I am currently preparing the cookie policy, privacy agreement...etc. I want to legally cover my bases, and follow the licenses of dependencies, however, I have concern about that document actually becoming an unintentional schematic of my server's architecture.

For instance, I am using next.js to handle HTTP requests. Their license on github reads:

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2024 Vercel, Inc.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That phrase, 'The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.' I have concern over. Mainly, I don't want to necessarily create a billboard in the fine print of my website saying, "HEY EVERYONE, I'M USING VERCEL DEPENDENCIES!" Is there any well-established resources so I can educate myself on how to handle this from the security, legal, and ethical standpoints?

Answer 1

The legally correct way to handle the MIT license is that everyone who gets a (transformed) copy of the next.js file (or any other file licensed under the MIT license), must also get a copy of the MIT license text and the copyright statements associated with next.js. This applies to plain copies, but also to copies that have been bundled with other files, complied and/or minified.

The ethical way is to also inform the recipients which files you received under the MIT license.

With regard to hiding the fact that you use next.js as a dependency, if you use it in your front-end code, there is no way to hide the dependency because the files get sent to the user anyway. If you use it only in your back-end code, then you don't have to advertise the use of the dependency to the people that merely access your web-app. Only the people that you sell/give the server-side code to have the right to receive the MIT license information.