github.com/opencontainers/go-digest safe for commercial use?Go module package · License: Apache-2.0
github.com/opencontainers/go-digest is licensed under Apache-2.0, 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 | Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Published library | No obligation | Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
AttributionNOTICE filePatent grant
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
Apache-2.0 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.
Permissive, but with two things MIT lacks: an explicit patent grant from contributors, and a requirement to carry forward any NOTICE file. Companies wary of patent exposure often prefer it over MIT for that reason.
github.com/opencontainers/go-digest is licensed under Apache-2.0, which imposes no source-disclosure obligation in any of the shipping models below. Attribution still applies.
Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Apache-2.0 section 4 requires retaining copyright notices, a copy of the license, and any NOTICE file. Section 3 grants a patent license from contributors. There is no source-disclosure obligation.
Apache-2.0 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).