MIT License says:

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

However, a few repositories do not have any copyright notice, while it is published under MIT license.

e.g. tapable says it is under MIT License in package.json. It does not have copyright notice or LICENSE file though.

I wonder how I can follow MIT License. Should I write new copyright notice for tapable by myself? Can I skip including copyright notice of tapable? Or can’t I use this much popular library legally?

EDIT: The tapable does have copyright notice in its source code actually. But, how about the resolve-pathname? This is also well-used as a dependee of the latest version of react-router.


While there may not be a top-level LICENSE for or similar, each JavaScript file in that repository both links to the "canonical" copy of the MIT License at opensource.org and contains a copyright line. Combined with the assertion in package.json, the intention of the author is more than clear; I would be more than happy to use the package, borrowing the copyright line from that stated in any of the JavaScript files.

The other obvious option is to submit a pull request which adds the license file; that would remove all ambiguity.

  • 1
    Thank you for the answer. It's my fault that the tapable is too good example xd. How do you think if the package.json has "license": "MIT" but there is no LICENSE nor any copyright notice, such as resolve-pathname? – kdama Aug 6 '18 at 9:11
  • @kdama My question has been marked as a duplicate, but has comments regarding this: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/… – Damien Golding Aug 16 '18 at 7:32

Your Answer

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

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