github.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2 safe for commercial use?Go module package · License: MIT
github.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2 is licensed under MIT, which imposes no source-disclosure obligation in any of the shipping models below. Attribution still applies.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Published library | No obligation | MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
Attribution
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
MIT appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
The most widely used permissive license. It grants nearly unrestricted use in exchange for keeping the copyright notice and license text with the software. There is no source-disclosure requirement and no patent clause.
github.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2 is licensed under MIT, which imposes no source-disclosure obligation in any of the shipping models below. Attribution still applies.
MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
MIT appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
This page covers one package. Your go.sum has many more.
Check your whole manifest →The license was read from the repository's own LICENSE file, falling back to deps.dev and then ClearlyDefined — Go has no central license metadata, so a project's LICENSE at its default branch is the most direct answer to what it is licensed under today, then evaluated against each shipping model. Dependencies in this ecosystem are linked statically, which is assumed here. Only the declared license is considered; code copied into a project's own source files is not detected by this method.
License data last reviewed .
LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.
Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).