Open Source License Compatibility Checker | Free DevOps Tool | FOSSA<br>Skip to main contentLog In<br>Demo

Library License (Source)The license of the code you want to use.<br>option]:bg-[#1a1a1a] [&>option]:text-white">MIT LicenseApache License 2.0BSD 3-ClauseGNU GPL v2.0 (Only)GNU GPL v3.0GNU AGPL v3.0Mozilla Public License 2.0<br>Your Project License (Target)The license you are applying to your project.<br>option]:bg-[#1a1a1a] [&>option]:text-white">MIT LicenseApache License 2.0BSD 3-ClauseGNU GPL v2.0 (Only)GNU GPL v3.0GNU AGPL v3.0Mozilla Public License 2.0

How are you distributing the software?option]:bg-[#1a1a1a] [&>option]:text-white">Distributing / shipping (binaries, mobile apps)SaaS / cloud / hosted network serviceInternal use only<br>Are you modifying the component?option]:bg-[#1a1a1a] [&>option]:text-white">No, using it as-isYes, making modifications

MITGPL 3.0<br>Compatible<br>The short answer<br>Permissive licenses like MIT carry few restrictions, so they can be absorbed into copyleft projects like GPL 3.0.

Key obligations

Retain the original copyright notices and license text for the MIT components.

Potential conflicts

None. The copyleft terms supersede the permissive terms for the combined work.

Distribution notes

The combined work as a whole must be distributed under GPL 3.0.

Deep-dive resources<br>Open Source Licenses Explained<br>A Developer's Guide to OSS Licenses<br>Automate License Compliance with FOSSA

Stop guessing. Start automating.<br>Modern applications pull in hundreds of transitive dependencies. A manual check can't keep up.<br>Scan your dependency tree

Disclaimer: This tool offers general guidance based on widely accepted open source community norms and does not constitute legal advice. For commercial use, always consult legal counsel or use a dedicated compliance platform like FOSSA to analyze your specific dependency graph.

Open source license compatibility matrix<br>Read a row as the library you want to use and the column as your project license. Select any cell for the full breakdown.

Compatibility of each open source library license (rows) with each project license (columns).Library ↓ / Project →MITApache 2.0BSD-3GPL 2.0GPL 3.0AGPL 3.0MPL 2.0MIT✓✓✓✓✓✓Apache 2.0✓✓✕✓✓✓BSD-3✓✓✓✓✓✓GPL 2.0✕✕✕✕✕~GPL 3.0✕✕✕✕✓~AGPL 3.0✕✕✕~~~MPL 2.0~~~~~~<br>Compatible Incompatible~ Conditional Same license

Open source license quick reference<br>The core obligations of each license at a glance.

LicenseTypeCommercial usePatent grantSource sharingMIT LicenseA short, highly permissive license. Use it almost anywhere as long as you keep the copyright and license notice.PermissiveYesNoneNot requiredApache License 2.0Permissive, with an express patent grant and a NOTICE-file requirement. Its patent terms make it incompatible with GPL v2.0.Permissive (+ patent grant)YesExpressNot requiredBSD 3-ClausePermissive like MIT, plus a clause barring use of the project's name to endorse derived products.PermissiveYesNoneNot requiredGNU GPL v2.0 (Only)Strong copyleft. Distributing a combined work means releasing all of it under GPL v2.0. The "only" variant is incompatible with the GPL v3 family.Strong copyleftYesNoneEntire combined workGNU GPL v3.0Strong copyleft with patent and anti-tivoization protections. Designed to be compatible with Apache 2.0.Strong copyleftYesExpressEntire combined workGNU AGPL v3.0Network copyleft. Closes the "SaaS loophole" — offering the software over a network triggers the obligation to share source.Network copyleftYesExpressCombined work + network useMozilla Public License 2.0Weak, file-level copyleft. You must share changes to MPL-covered files, but the rest of your project can use another license.Weak copyleftYesExpressModified files only

How open source license compatibility works<br>Two licenses are compatible when code under one can be legally combined and distributed with code under the other. Incompatibility almost always comes from copyleft terms — requirements that the combined work be released under the same license — clashing with another license's rules.<br>Permissive licenses (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD)<br>Add few obligations beyond keeping notices, so they can be combined into almost any project — including proprietary software. Apache 2.0 is the exception that carries an express patent grant, which is why it conflicts with GPL v2.0.

Strong copyleft (GPL)<br>Requires the entire combined work to ship under the same license. You can pull permissive code into a GPL project, but you cannot re-license GPL code under a permissive license — a one-way street.

Weak copyleft (MPL)<br>Applies copyleft at the file level. You share changes to the covered files, but the rest of your project can use a different license — so MPL can live inside a permissive project.

Network copyleft (AGPL)<br>Extends copyleft to software offered over a network, closing the "SaaS loophole." Using AGPL code in a hosted service can obligate you to share your application's source with users.

Compatibility also depends on how you distribute . Purely internal...