{"id":"MIT-0","title":"MIT No Attribution","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/MIT-0.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models MIT without its one condition. The grant is the MIT grant minus the notice requirement, so the record carries the permissions of the MIT record and no duty at all, which is the whole difference between the two licenses. Sublicensing and relicensing are permitted, as on Cc010Universal, because nothing has to travel with a copy.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The grant reads: \"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.\" The record therefore permits reproduce, distribute, modify, derive, display, present, grantUse, sublicense, commercial use, derivative works, modified works and the distribution fee. The grant names sublicensing in as many words, so dalicc:sublicense is a permission, and the clause that lets the recipient of a copy do the same is odrl:grantUse, the term the MIT record already uses for it.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is permitted, following Cc010Universal: the grant carries no condition, so a licensee may put a copy under other terms. This is the one statement that separates MIT-0 from MIT in a compatibility result, together with the absence of duties.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"No duties. The sentence that carries the MIT notice condition, \"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software\", is absent from this text, which is why the license exists.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"No prohibitions. The text has no trademark, endorsement or advertising clause, so dalicc:promote is not prohibited even though most permissive records carry it.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The disclaimer paragraph holds two sentences: the warranty disclaimer and the liability limitation. They are quoted into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation respectively. The MIT record keeps both sentences in dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and leaves dalicc:LiabilityLimitation empty, so the two records split the same paragraph differently.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The text names no legal system and no term, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"One odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dcmitype:Software, following MIT. The text licenses software and its documentation.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the axioms of dg_default returned no conflicts. No share-alike duty is present, so permitting dalicc:ChangeLicense raises no conflict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"MIT-0 is MIT minus the notice condition, not a version of MIT, so the record carries no dalicc:variantKind. Read against MIT the difference is: no cc:Attribution and no cc:Notice duty anywhere, and dalicc:ChangeLicense permitted.","action":"none"}],"family":"Permissive: MIT, ISC and BSD-like","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text, which is the text of the AWS repository named in cc:legalcode. dct:publisher names Amazon Web Services, which published the license and keeps the canonical copy."}