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.

Your Answer

 
discard

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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