MIT vs Apache 2.0 vs GPL: A Developer’s Guide to License Selection

Choosing the right open source license is one of the most consequential decisions you’ll make for your project. With MIT claiming 44.69% of GitHub projects, Apache 2.0 holding 11.19%, and GPL versions accounting for 21.84% combined, these three license families represent nearly 78% of all licensed open source software.

Each serves different philosophies about software freedom, legal protection, and community building. Understanding their practical implications will help you make an informed choice that aligns with your project’s goals and values.

The Permissive Licenses: MIT and Apache 2.0

Both MIT and Apache 2.0 are permissive licenses, meaning they place minimal restrictions on how others can use your code. Users can modify, distribute, and even incorporate your work into proprietary software without sharing their changes back to the community.

MIT License: Maximum Simplicity

MIT is a short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. At just 171 words, it’s the most straightforward license available.

What MIT Allows:

  • Use, modify, distribute, and sublicense
  • Integration into proprietary software
  • Commercial use without restrictions
  • Private modifications that remain private

What MIT Requires:

  • Include original copyright notice
  • Include license text in distributions
  • That’s it—no other obligations

When to Choose MIT:

MIT works best for libraries, frameworks, and tools where maximum adoption is the priority. MIT allows anyone to do anything with the code, as long as they credit the original author, with no obligation to open source your own code. This makes it ideal for developer tools, utility libraries, and projects where you want to remove all barriers to usage.

Apache 2.0: Permissive with Patents

Apache 2.0 is a permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices, with contributors providing an express grant of patent rights. While similar in spirit to MIT, Apache 2.0 addresses patent concerns that MIT ignores entirely.

What Apache 2.0 Adds Beyond MIT:

  • Explicit patent grant from contributors
  • Patent retaliation clause (patent licenses terminate if you sue)
  • Requirement to document significant changes
  • More detailed attribution requirements

What Apache 2.0 Requires:

  • Preserve copyright and license notices
  • Include NOTICE file if present
  • Mark modified files with change notices
  • Provide patent grants to all users

When to Choose Apache 2.0:

Companies incorporate OSS licensed under Apache 2.0 for several reasons. One is the explicit grant of patent rights, which provides additional legal protection and reduces the risks of lawsuits. Choose Apache 2.0 for enterprise-focused projects, corporate-backed initiatives, or any project where patent litigation is a concern.

The Copyleft Alternative: GPL

GPL licenses operate on a fundamentally different philosophy: they ensure derivative works remain open source. The licenses in the GPL series are all copyleft licenses, which means that any derivative work must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms.

GPLv2: Classic Copyleft

As a copyleft license, the GPL v2 has one key caveat: Users cannot sublicense the code under any other terms. All publicly distributed modifications must be licensed under GPL v2.

What GPLv2 Requires:

  • Distribute source code with binaries
  • License derivative works under GPLv2
  • Preserve copyright and license notices
  • Provide installation instructions for embedded systems

GPLv3: Modern Copyleft

GPLv2 focuses primarily on software licensing and distribution, whereas GPLv3 includes provisions for digital rights management (DRM) and hardware restrictions. GPLv3 still maintains the same primary intent as GPLv2 but has stricter copyleft protections.

What GPLv3 Adds Beyond GPLv2:

  • Anti-tivoization clauses (prevent hardware restrictions)
  • Patent grants and retaliation
  • Better international compatibility
  • Network copyleft provisions in AGPLv3

When to Choose GPL:

GPL makes sense when you want to ensure improvements remain public. It’s popular for system software, developer tools, and projects where community contributions are essential. Notable GPL projects include the Linux kernel (GPLv2), GCC, and many GNU tools.

Practical Decision Framework

The choice between these licenses often comes down to your primary objectives:

Choose MIT When:

  • Building libraries or frameworks for broad adoption
  • Targeting startup and individual developer communities
  • Prioritizing simplicity over legal protection
  • Creating educational or experimental projects

GNU recommends to use Apache License 2.0 over MIT/Expat license, but MIT remains popular for its simplicity

Choose Apache 2.0 When:

  • Developing enterprise or corporate-backed software
  • Operating in patent-sensitive industries
  • Requiring detailed contribution attribution
  • Building large, professionally managed projects

Google recommends to use Apache License 2.0 for their open source projects

Choose GPL When:

  • Ensuring derivative works remain open source
  • Building community-driven projects where contributions should benefit everyone
  • Developing system-level software or infrastructure
  • Opposing proprietary extensions to your work

License Compatibility Considerations

Understanding how licenses interact is crucial for complex projects:

Compatibility Matrix:

  • MIT code can be combined with Apache 2.0 code
  • BSD licenses are compatible with GPLv2 and v3
  • Apache 2.0 is incompatible with GPLv2 but compatible with GPLv3
  • GPL code cannot be combined with most permissive licensed code in proprietary distributions

Real-World Impact

If MIT Licensed code is combined with Apache License 2.0 code, then the derivative code might be Apache License 2.0. This one-way compatibility means more permissive licenses can be “upgraded” to more restrictive ones, but not the reverse.

Different organizations have varying comfort levels with these licenses:

Corporate Preferences:

  • Startups often prefer MIT for simplicity and broad adoption
  • Large corporations typically prefer Apache 2.0 for patent protection
  • Organizations releasing community projects may choose GPL to prevent proprietary forks

MIT’s brevity means faster legal review cycles. The Apache license uses more words. The wordiness creates greater specificity about contributors’ obligations, which might help in a dispute. But it also can be a turnoff — “Do I need to have my lawyer look at this?” comes to mind for some developers.

Making Your Decision

The license you choose sends a signal about your project’s values and intended community. MIT prioritizes maximum freedom and adoption. Apache 2.0 balances freedom with enterprise-grade legal protection. GPL ensures community contributions remain publicly available.

Consider your project’s lifecycle: early-stage libraries benefit from MIT’s broad adoption potential, while mature enterprise tools might justify Apache 2.0’s additional legal framework. Community-focused projects that rely on contributions often thrive under GPL’s reciprocal requirements.

Remember that license selection is permanent for existing code—you can’t retroactively change licenses without consent from all contributors. Choose thoughtfully based on your long-term vision, not just immediate convenience.

The 78% market share held by these three license families reflects their proven effectiveness in different scenarios. Whether you prioritize maximum permissiveness, patent protection, or community reciprocity, understanding these distinctions will help you select the license that best serves your project’s mission.

Exploring MIT-licensed alternatives for your development stack? Browse enterprise-ready, permissively licensed projects at reporaft.com to find solutions that prioritize developer freedom and broad adoption.