License
Pain point
Publishing source code does not automatically grant others permission to use, modify, or redistribute it. Without an explicit license, potential users and contributors must treat those rights as unclear or reserved.
Official references:
- MIT License — Open Source Initiative
- MIT License — Choose a License
- Licensing a repository — GitHub Docs
This template is distributed under the MIT License.
Why this template uses MIT
MIT is short, permissive, and widely understood. It allows people and organizations to use, copy, modify, distribute, sublicense, and sell the template, including as part of commercial or private projects. That low-friction permission matches the purpose of a reusable development foundation.
The license requires recipients to preserve the copyright and permission notice in copies or substantial portions of the licensed material. It also provides the software without warranty and limits liability.
What MIT does not require
MIT does not require a derived project to publish its source code, use the same license for a larger work, or distribute modifications publicly. Projects that require reciprocal source sharing should evaluate a copyleft license instead.
MIT also does not contain the more explicit patent terms found in Apache-2.0. A project with material patent concerns should evaluate that distinction deliberately.
Projects created from this template
The root LICENSE applies to the template material. Creating a new repository from the template should trigger an explicit licensing decision:
- Decide whether the new project should remain under MIT.
- If it remains MIT, review the year and copyright holder for the new project.
- If another license is required, replace the template license before distribution.
- Confirm that dependencies, copied material, assets, and generated content are compatible with the selected license.
- Mention the selected license in the project README and keep the complete license text at the repository root.
A public GitHub repository without a license is not automatically open source. Default copyright law generally reserves rights that an open-source license would otherwise grant.
When another license may fit better
| Objective | License family to evaluate |
|---|---|
| Permissive reuse with explicit patent terms | Apache-2.0 |
| File-level reciprocal source sharing | MPL-2.0 |
| Strong reciprocal licensing for distributed derivatives | GPL |
| Reciprocal licensing including network use | AGPL |
License selection depends on the project, contributors, dependencies, ownership, and intended distribution. This page provides general project guidance, not legal advice; seek qualified legal advice when the consequences matter.