License Compliance: What 56% of Companies Get Wrong About MIT Projects

Despite MIT License being the most straightforward open source license available, a staggering reality emerges from the 2025 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis (OSSRA) report: 56% of audited commercial applications contain license conflicts. This statistic reveals a troubling disconnect between MIT’s perceived simplicity and actual compliance practices in enterprise environments.

The problem isn’t that MIT License is complex—it’s that companies consistently underestimate the importance of proper license management, even for permissive licenses. Understanding these common pitfalls can help organizations avoid legal risks, protect intellectual property, and maintain compliance in an increasingly open source-dependent world.

The Scale of the License Compliance Crisis

The OSSRA report, which examines vulnerabilities and license conflicts across more than 950 codebases spanning 16 industries, paints a concerning picture of license management practices. License conflicts occur when the licenses of open source components clash with each other or with the overall license of the project.

Beyond the 56% of applications with license conflicts, an additional 33% of codebases contained open source software components with no license or a customized license. This means nearly 90% of commercial applications face some form of licensing issue—a statistic that should alarm any organization relying on open source software.

Industry-Specific Risks: The data reveals significant variation across sectors, with EdTech and Big Data/AI sectors showing the highest rates of license conflicts. Even the Energy and Clean Tech sector, which had the lowest conflict rates, still showed 60% of codebases containing high-risk vulnerabilities related to license management.

Common MIT License Misconceptions

MIT License’s reputation for simplicity creates a dangerous assumption that compliance is automatic. This perception leads to several critical misconceptions that contribute to the high violation rates.

Misconception 1: “MIT Means No Requirements”

Many developers and legal teams mistakenly believe MIT License places no obligations on users. In reality, MIT has clear requirements that must be met:

What MIT License Actually Requires:

Include the original copyright notice
Include the license text itself
Preserve these notices in all copies or substantial portions

The license states that these conditions apply to “all copies or substantial portions of the software.” This requirement is absolute—there are no exceptions for internal use, binary distributions, or integrated components.

Misconception 2: “Attribution Only Applies to Source Code”

A prevalent misunderstanding involves the scope of attribution requirements. Companies often include MIT license notices in source code repositories but fail to carry them forward to compiled binaries, documentation, or end-user applications.

Real-World Impact: When MIT-licensed code is compiled into proprietary software, the copyright and license notices must accompany the distribution. This applies to desktop applications, mobile apps, embedded systems, and web services that incorporate MIT-licensed components.

Misconception 3: “Internal Use Doesn’t Require Compliance”

Organizations frequently assume that internal-only use of MIT-licensed software exempts them from attribution requirements. However, the license text makes no distinction between internal and external distribution—the moment software is shared beyond the original recipient, compliance obligations activate.

Enterprise Risk: This misconception becomes particularly problematic during mergers, acquisitions, or software audits, where previously “internal” code suddenly faces external scrutiny.

The Hidden Complexity of Transitive Dependencies

Modern software development relies heavily on dependency management systems like npm, Maven, and pip. These systems automatically resolve and include numerous open source packages, creating what the industry calls “transitive dependencies”—components that your direct dependencies rely upon.

The Scale Problem: A typical enterprise application might directly depend on 20-50 open source packages, but when transitive dependencies are included, this number often exceeds 500 components. Each component potentially carries its own licensing obligations.

License Conflict Scenarios: Problems arise when direct dependencies use compatible licenses, but their transitive dependencies introduce conflicting terms. For example:

An MIT-licensed library depends on a GPL-licensed component
Apache 2.0 code includes an MIT-licensed utility with specific attribution requirements
Multiple MIT-licensed components have conflicting copyright date ranges

According to the OSSRA findings, transitive dependencies are a major contributor to license conflicts, yet most organizations lack visibility into their complete dependency tree.

Attribution in Practice: What Goes Wrong

Even when companies understand MIT’s attribution requirements, implementation often falls short of legal standards. Common attribution failures include:

Incomplete Copyright Information

MIT license notices must include specific copyright information, but companies frequently provide generic or incomplete attributions:

Missing License Text

Including just the copyright notice without the full MIT license text violates compliance requirements. The complete license text must accompany every distribution.

Inconsistent Attribution Locations

Organizations often scatter attribution information across multiple locations—some in source code, others in documentation, and still others in application “About” sections. This fragmented approach creates compliance gaps and audit difficulties.

The Business Impact of License Violations

License compliance failures carry significant business consequences that extend beyond legal risk:

Legal Liability: Even one noncompliant license in software could result in legal issues, loss of lucrative intellectual property, time-consuming remediation efforts, and delays in getting products to market.

M&A Due Diligence: License conflicts become critical issues during merger and acquisition transactions. Buyers often discover compliance problems that require expensive remediation or, in extreme cases, can derail entire deals.

Competitive Disadvantage: Companies with poor license compliance practices face longer legal review cycles, delayed product releases, and increased operational overhead compared to competitors with robust compliance programs.

Industry-Specific Compliance Challenges

Different industries face unique compliance challenges based on their software distribution models and regulatory environments:

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

SaaS companies often assume that cloud deployment exempts them from attribution requirements. However, if customers can download client software, mobile apps, or SDKs, compliance obligations apply.

Embedded Systems

Hardware manufacturers frequently overlook license compliance for firmware and embedded software, creating risks when devices are sold commercially or transferred to third parties.

Enterprise Software

Companies developing on-premises enterprise software must ensure license notices accompany every customer deployment, including updates and patches.

Building Effective Compliance Programs

Organizations can significantly reduce their compliance risk by implementing systematic approaches to license management:

Automated Software Composition Analysis

Using automated software composition analysis (SCA) tools creates up-to-date, accurate Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) that identifies all open source components, their versions, and associated licenses.

Policy Development

Establishing clear policies for open source use, including approved license lists and attribution requirements, helps development teams make compliant choices from the project’s inception.

Regular Auditing

Conducting periodic license audits, especially before major releases or business transactions, identifies compliance issues while they’re still manageable.

Developer Education

Training development teams on license compliance requirements ensures that compliance considerations become part of the development workflow rather than an afterthought.

The Path to MIT License Compliance

Despite its simplicity, MIT License compliance requires systematic attention to detail and organizational commitment. The fact that 56% of applications have license conflicts suggests that most organizations need significant improvements in their compliance practices.

Best Practices for MIT Compliance:

Maintain complete attribution information for all MIT-licensed components
Include full license text in all distributions
Track transitive dependencies and their licensing requirements
Implement automated tools for ongoing compliance monitoring
Conduct regular compliance audits and reviews

The high rate of license conflicts isn’t inevitable—it’s the result of insufficient attention to compliance processes. Organizations that invest in proper license management can confidently leverage the benefits of MIT-licensed software while avoiding the legal and business risks that affect the majority of their competitors.

As open source continues to dominate software development, license compliance becomes a competitive advantage. Companies that master MIT license compliance—and open source compliance generally—position themselves for faster innovation, smoother business transactions, and reduced legal risk.

The 56% violation rate represents both a warning and an opportunity. Organizations that address license compliance proactively will find themselves among the minority that fully captures open source benefits without the compliance headaches that plague most commercial software development.

Building compliant software with MIT-licensed components? Explore pre-vetted, compliance-friendly projects at reporaft.com where all featured projects use the MIT License, making compliance tracking simpler for your development teams.