There have been a few comments on whether or not the MIT license includes an implicit patent license, or is just a copyright license.<p>It should be noted that there is nothing in the MIT license that actually says it is a copyright license. Here is what it grants you permission to do:<p>> 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, subject to the following conditions<p>It is giving you permission to "deal in the Software". What that means is not defined but it gives several examples that it includes: use, copy, modify, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies.<p>Several of those, including use, copy, sell copies and maybe distribute, are things that require patent permission if the software is patented. The plain language of the license says that you have permission to do those things, and the only way you can have that permission is if you have a patent license, so I don't see how a court could read the license as not including a patent grant if the licensor has patents that cover it.