On choosealicense.com, there's a section that says:
Any open source software license or open license for media (see above) is applicable to software documentation
This implies that the MIT license is suitable for documentation. However, I find it weird that a software license would be applicable to documentation. The MIT license explicitely talks about software. The only part where the documentation appears is on what triggers the license obligations.
While re-reading the license again and again, I noticed the slight wording difference that makes it suitable.
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")
So when software is spelled with a capitalized "S", it means: software + documentation. And that's the capitalized version that is used in all the rest of the document:
rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
So yes, the license applies to the documentation too.
