The MIT licence contains

Permission is hereby granted,[..] to sell copies of the Software

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

I know that Bootstrap uses the MIT licence, I also see thousand of Bootstrap templates sold on various platforms. Does it imply, that they are all under the MIT licence and that each buyer may sell them as often as he wants?

  • Only if the license is included in the specific template to which you are referring is MIT licensed, does the MIT license refer to that template. For example, Microsoft Windows has license X (proprietary). It does not mean that all software for MS-Windows has license X. Some Windows software has free licenses, some software has other licenses.
    – Brandin
    Apr 7 '20 at 4:41

No. If Bootstrap were conveyed under GPL, or another copyleft free licence, and if templates were (in copyright terms) derivative works of Bootstrap, then the templates would be required to be conveyed under GPL also, and could be distributed as you have described (though the buyers in your example would have to resell them with GPL rights attached, which might not be a great business model).

But the MIT licence, like the other weak free licences, does not require that derivatives are distributed under the same terms. It is perfectly lawful to mix proprietary and MIT-licensed software, and the proprietary software does not become implicitly freely-licensed by this.

You will have to examine each of these Bootstrap templates for the terms that govern the purchase, and if (as is likely) they are non-free, you have no more right to sell copies of them than you do with, say, Microsoft Office.

  • Thanks a lot for your answer! But where do you got this from? I don't find in the offical MIT licence a statement like The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies, unless the software is used as fundament of a new software. I know it would not be a great business model, :), but I just see so many sold software that is using a bunch of MIT-licensed software and I wonder, where is the threshold where a modified MIT software can be licensed as non-free like Microsoft Office.
    – Adam
    Apr 1 '20 at 7:09
  • I guess opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2187/… is what I am looking for..
    – Adam
    Apr 1 '20 at 7:11
  • @Adam there is no such threshold. Modified or even unmodified MIT software can be distributed under a non-free licence. Yes, you have to preserve the MIT license statement but it doesn't have to apply to what you are shipping, it is just text that must be supplied with it. Weak licences lack language like GPLv3 s5c, that require the licence not only to be communicated but to apply to the redistributed code in its entirety.
    – MadHatter
    Apr 2 '20 at 6:24
  • so if I create a Bootstrap theme, the Bootstrap Framework will keep the MIT License, and I can use whatever license for my theme code? So I have different licenses for different part of codes?
    – Adam
    Apr 2 '20 at 6:33
  • @Adam it's hard to say, because you haven't linked to the Bootstrap framework, which makes researching it rather more difficult than it need be. But broadly speaking, I believe that you may incorporate MIT-licensed code into your program, then distribute that program under any licence you please; see my answer over on law.SE for a more detailed discussion of the issue.
    – MadHatter
    Apr 2 '20 at 7:04

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.