The MIT License does not restrict commercialization aside from requiring attribution. In fact, the text of the license includes the phrase "without restriction"

The MIT License does not restrict commercialization aside from requiring attribution. In fact, the text of the license includes the phrase "without restriction": > 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: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License Open source software licenses have always allowed the licensed software to be resold by others. The very first criterion in the Open Source Definition is: > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ The "Any Source Available License 1.0" is not an open source software license because it restricts commercial use, but it happens to be correctly named because it is a source-available software license. Source-available software (such as Anytype) is still preferable to proprietary software with little to no source code published (such as Notion), since it is easier to audit software when the source code is available.