Yes, the MIT License is free for commercial use: you can use MIT-licensed code in closed-source products, paid software, and services without paying royalties or open-sourcing your own code. The MIT License is one of the most permissive open-source licenses in wide use, and its terms place almost no restriction on how you build a business on top of the code. There is exactly one obligation you must honor, and getting it wrong is the most common way teams accidentally fall out of compliance. This guide explains what the MIT License permits, the single requirement it imposes, and how it stacks up against the Apache License 2.0 for commercial use.
What the MIT License permits
The MIT License grants you the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software. That list is deliberately broad. "Use" and "sell" together mean you can put MIT-licensed code inside a commercial product and charge money for that product. Nothing in the license requires you to release your own source code, contribute changes back, or pay the original author anything.
This is what makes MIT so popular for libraries: the author is saying, in effect, "do almost anything you want with this." A startup can build a proprietary SaaS product on a stack of MIT-licensed dependencies and never publish a line of its own code, and that is entirely within the license.
The one thing you must do
The MIT License is not a public-domain dedication. It carries a single, non-negotiable condition: you must include the original copyright notice and the license text in all copies or substantial portions of the software.
In practice, this means preserving the LICENSE file and copyright header when you bundle MIT code, and, for distributed applications, including the license text somewhere users can find it, commonly a third-party notices or attributions file. For a compiled binary or a container image, the obligation still applies; you simply satisfy it by shipping an attributions document alongside the artifact. Skipping this is the most common MIT compliance mistake, and while it rarely triggers a lawsuit for a small library, it is a real license violation and it looks careless in due diligence during an acquisition or funding round.
What "no warranty" means for you
The rest of the MIT License is a disclaimer: the software is provided "as is," with no warranty, and the authors are not liable for damages. For a commercial user this is a risk to be aware of, not a restriction on use. It means if an MIT-licensed dependency has a bug or a security flaw that causes you harm, you have no legal recourse against the author. That is one more reason to scan your dependencies for known vulnerabilities rather than trusting that a popular library is automatically safe.
Is the Apache License 2.0 free for commercial use too?
Yes, the Apache License 2.0 is also free for commercial use, and it is similarly permissive, but it does more than MIT in two ways that matter for businesses.
First, Apache 2.0 includes an explicit patent grant. Contributors grant you a license to any patents they hold that are needed to use their contribution, and the grant terminates if you sue them for patent infringement over the software. MIT is silent on patents, so with MIT you rely on an implied license that is legally murkier. For patent-sensitive industries, the explicit Apache grant is a genuine advantage.
Second, Apache 2.0 has a clearer attribution and change-notice mechanism. If you modify Apache-licensed files, you must mark them as changed, and you must preserve any NOTICE file and propagate its contents. That is slightly more paperwork than MIT's single-notice rule, but it is still trivially compatible with closed-source commercial products. You do not have to open-source your changes under either license.
The practical takeaway: both MIT and Apache 2.0 let you build commercial, proprietary products freely. Choose Apache 2.0 when patent clarity matters; MIT is fine when it does not and you want the simplest possible terms.
Where commercial teams actually get tripped up
The license of a single dependency is easy. The problem is that a modern application pulls in hundreds of transitive dependencies, and while most are MIT or Apache 2.0, a few may carry copyleft licenses like GPL or AGPL that impose real obligations on distributed or networked commercial software. A dependency you added for a small utility can transitively pull in something with a much stricter license, and you will not notice unless you look.
This is a job for automated license scanning. A tool that reads your full dependency tree and reports the license of every package, direct and transitive, turns license compliance from a manual audit into a check that runs on every build. An SCA tool such as Safeguard can surface a copyleft dependency hiding several layers deep before it ships in your commercial product, which is exactly the case that manual review misses. For a fuller breakdown of the license categories and their obligations, see our guide on types of software licensing.
A simple compliance checklist
Keep it lightweight. Maintain an inventory of every dependency and its license, generated automatically rather than by hand. Preserve the copyright and license text for every MIT and Apache component you distribute, collected into a single third-party notices file. Flag any GPL, AGPL, or other copyleft license for legal review before it enters a distributed product. And rescan on every build, because a routine dependency upgrade can change a package's license or introduce a new transitive one. That is the whole job, and automation does most of it.
FAQ
Can I use MIT-licensed code in a closed-source commercial product?
Yes. The MIT License explicitly permits use, sale, and distribution in proprietary products, and it does not require you to release your own source code. You only have to preserve the original copyright notice and license text in the distributed software.
Do I have to pay anything to use MIT-licensed software commercially?
No. The MIT License grants all rights free of charge, with no royalties and no fees. Your only obligation is attribution: including the copyright notice and license text.
Is Apache 2.0 or MIT better for commercial use?
Both allow unrestricted commercial use in proprietary products. Apache 2.0 adds an explicit patent grant and a change-notice requirement, making it the safer choice when patent risk matters. MIT is simpler and fine when patent concerns are low. Neither forces you to open-source your code.
What happens if I forget the MIT attribution?
Omitting the required copyright and license notice is a license violation, even though small-library authors rarely litigate it. It also surfaces as a red flag during acquisition or investment due diligence. Keep a third-party notices file and the risk disappears.