4 ms·

Both are MIT licensed, I don't think this is the case.

samatman 4y ago
It's true of source code but not artifacts. MIT places no obligation to distribute source, but requires credit and license when someone does so.
- tonyonodi 4y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not distributing the source code so I think I'm good.
  - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
    Don't look to people who don't know what they're talking about to "clear things up" for you. If you think they have any qualms about leaving you to deal with the blowback after misleading you with uninformed takes (and pointing the finger at you for putting your faith in them to begin with), then you're setting yourself up to be burned. There's a reason why everyone who has their ducks in a row (in other words, people with competent legal counsel along with something to lose, e.g. Mozilla, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) will bake something like about:license into the stuff they work on, even if it's buried in some "open source licenses" entry of an About screen reachable by the last menu item in the system settings. Spoiler alert: it's because they have to—in order to comply with the terms of the license. It's not because they just think it's the nice thing to do. (And definitely not because it's fun and easy to do, because it's not.)
- pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
  > It's true of source code but not artifacts. That's simply not true. Please don't do stuff like this—to go off and make these kind of proclamations in public. It's negligent at best.
  - afro88 4y ago
    Just when I thought I understood the MIT license, I'm back to confused. Can you link me to where this is clearly outlined? Do you need to attribute somewhere in artifacts or not?
    - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
      Not sure what you want. A link where this is clearly outlined? The license is two sentences and sets out the terms. The repeated distinction between source code and "artifacts" in this context is pure make-believe. The license doesn't even have those words in it, let alone say something like "Redistribution and use in source form requires inclusion of this permission notice and the above copyright notice, but if you're just building a product and publishing it as non-source code artifacts instead of distributing source, then lol don't worry about it bro" (or whatever it is the people here seem to think). The CodeMirror maintainer definitely expects people who build closed source stuff to include the notices that are in the CodeMirror LICENSE file. And anyone telling you the license doesn't require this (and e.g. this is a peculiarity of CodeMirror itself) is delusional.
      - afro88 4y ago
        Well, there's tons of conflicting advice out there if that's the case. Top result on DDG links through to this answer: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5828/where-would-i-give-credit-to-an-mit-licensed-project-in-an-ios-app https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5828/where-wo... And this was my understanding of how it works for artifacts. You don't have to attribute in the software itself, just the code.
        pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
        You get it that you're proving the point that comments like those are harmful, right?
        afro88 4y ago
rpdillon 4y ago
Relevant bit of the MIT License: > 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. I think that second part is relevant to the discussion. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

It's true of source code but not artifacts. MIT places no obligation to distribute source, but requires credit and license when someone does so.

tonyonodi 4y ago
Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not distributing the source code so I think I'm good.
- pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
  Don't look to people who don't know what they're talking about to "clear things up" for you. If you think they have any qualms about leaving you to deal with the blowback after misleading you with uninformed takes (and pointing the finger at you for putting your faith in them to begin with), then you're setting yourself up to be burned. There's a reason why everyone who has their ducks in a row (in other words, people with competent legal counsel along with something to lose, e.g. Mozilla, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) will bake something like about:license into the stuff they work on, even if it's buried in some "open source licenses" entry of an About screen reachable by the last menu item in the system settings. Spoiler alert: it's because they have to—in order to comply with the terms of the license. It's not because they just think it's the nice thing to do. (And definitely not because it's fun and easy to do, because it's not.)
pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
> It's true of source code but not artifacts. That's simply not true. Please don't do stuff like this—to go off and make these kind of proclamations in public. It's negligent at best.
- afro88 4y ago
  Just when I thought I understood the MIT license, I'm back to confused. Can you link me to where this is clearly outlined? Do you need to attribute somewhere in artifacts or not?
  - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
    Not sure what you want. A link where this is clearly outlined? The license is two sentences and sets out the terms. The repeated distinction between source code and "artifacts" in this context is pure make-believe. The license doesn't even have those words in it, let alone say something like "Redistribution and use in source form requires inclusion of this permission notice and the above copyright notice, but if you're just building a product and publishing it as non-source code artifacts instead of distributing source, then lol don't worry about it bro" (or whatever it is the people here seem to think). The CodeMirror maintainer definitely expects people who build closed source stuff to include the notices that are in the CodeMirror LICENSE file. And anyone telling you the license doesn't require this (and e.g. this is a peculiarity of CodeMirror itself) is delusional.
    - afro88 4y ago
      Well, there's tons of conflicting advice out there if that's the case. Top result on DDG links through to this answer: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5828/where-would-i-give-credit-to-an-mit-licensed-project-in-an-ios-app https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5828/where-wo... And this was my understanding of how it works for artifacts. You don't have to attribute in the software itself, just the code.
      - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
        You get it that you're proving the point that comments like those are harmful, right?
        afro88 4y ago

rpdillon 4y ago

Relevant bit of the MIT License: > 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. I think that second part is relevant to the discussion. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT