The GPL has been pertinent to several court cases. We know it is strong because it has been "battle-tested".

Can the same be said to be true for the MIT license?

  • 4
    GPL is a copy left license and it has stricter license conditions than the MIT. Fulfilling the MIT License is easy and therefore I assume most of the people succeed in doing it. You can't go against all the projects that don't fulfil the license conditions, but larger fish are easier to target.
    – ossx
    Jul 6, 2017 at 8:19
  • 3
    To add, I've got to say I can't imagine a way for the MIT license to really be "battle-tested." It really only includes a warranty/liability clause, and an attribution clause. I feel like it's also one of those "i-don't-care" licenses - if people want to just let anyone use it for anything, they'll go with MIT. As long as you include the license file, nothing can happen. As for the warranty/liability clause, statutory law in many jurisdictions doesn't place any warranty on software (with exceptions - they need to determine if it's a "good"), so the clause (in theory) just reinforces local law.
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 9, 2017 at 19:07

1 Answer 1


There are no court cases I ever heard of, as of this date, involving the MIT license. I am not sure there is anything on BSD either (short of the Berkeley vs. AT&T feud over Unix, last century, maybe). This BSD issue came out close but never went to court. In fact things rarely end up in courts with FLOSS licensing and are mostly resolved amicably, as they should be.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.