I create Application for my client. I use some libraries released on GitHub under MIT, BSD and Apache license. I create also documentation (PDF file) where I would like to point what libraries and components I've used.

What details about libraries should I place beside the name/source of library to satisfy MIT, BSD and Apache License conditions?

Is it enough to give only the name and licence of the resource? Or should I put also the Author name and the full text of specific license?

1 Answer 1


IANAL, but as far as I have seen it in open source projects, a "LICENSES.txt" or "LICENSES.md" is the most common way to do it. In which you group your dependencies based on their licenses (e.g., first block is MIT; second BSD; third Apache2...).

License name + project name should be sufficient.

If you are a bit nicer, then include a link for every license to the official text of the license (e.g., https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT don't use Wikipedia links); or even copy the text of the license there.

If you are even nicer, and the project has only a handful of authors (e.g., it's not Apache Maven with a lot of contributors), then you could list those authors too, but this I haven't seen in widespread use.

P.s.: I kinda have a small OCD, so I would take extra care that I really list all my dependencies. With maven it's doable with the dependencies plugin, although it can get tricky quite quickly (e.g., what do you do with a project which is under Apache2 but has a (L)GPL dependency? It couldn't be Apache2 in the first place, but are you still allowed to use it as Apache2? According to corporate lawyers: as long as you don't know about the (L)GPL dependency you are good to go. This is why I never look for transient dependencies, only direct ones :))

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.