MIT vs GPL 3.0: what is the difference?
Short answer: MIT: commercial use, modification, redistribution: Yes. GPL 3.0: the same uses: Yes.
MIT: Deal in the software without restriction, including to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense and sell it, as long as the copyright and permission notice go with all copies or substantial portions. GPL 3.0: Run, study, change and share the software, including commercially. If you convey it or a work based on it, you must do so under the GPL with the corresponding source.
MIT: commercial use, modification, redistribution: Yes
License: MIT License (MIT, curated)
- Every use you described is granted by MIT, and nothing you described is prohibited.
Duties: attribution, license_notice
GPL 3.0: the same uses: Yes
License: GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0-only, curated)
- Every use you described is granted by GPL 3.0, and nothing you described is prohibited.
Duties: attribution, license_notice, state_changes, share_alike, source_disclosure
Duties and notes compared
- MIT: duties attribution, license_notice. Provided as is, without warranty.
- GPL-3.0-only: duties attribution, license_notice, state_changes, share_alike, source_disclosure. Sublicensing is not allowed; every recipient receives a license from the original licensors (sections 2 and 10). Running the software, including as a network service, does not by itself trigger the duty to share source; conveying copies does.
Combined in one work: compatible.
Context
- The duties differ: compare the duties and notes listed for each license below.
Sources
- MIT License: official text
- MIT on the SPDX License List
- GNU General Public License v3.0: official text
- GPL-3.0-only on the SPDX License List
Check it yourself (free, no key)
{
"tool": "check_license",
"arguments": {
"license": "MIT",
"intended_use": {
"commercial_use": true,
"modification": true,
"redistribution": true
}
}
}Computed from Rightshold's license profiles; not legal advice. Updated 2026-10-19. JSON · Markdown
