5 ms·

People who use permissive licenses usually don't care about the license-inclusion clause, so most people just don't bother with it until someone comes asking. A

People who use permissive licenses usually don't care about the license-inclusion clause, so most people just don't bother with it until someone comes asking. At the end of the day, fixing that problem is just a matter of including a new text file in the next release. It's nowhere near as big of a deal as when someone complains that you're not complying with the GPL. By the way, whether you're linking statically or dynamically doesn't affect whether you ought to include the licenses of your dependencies. At least not for BSD, I'm less certain for MIT.

CameronNemo 4y ago
I disagree with both paragraphs. By choosing a license that requires attribution, developers are communicating a preference. MIT0 and 0BSD exist. If someone does not care about attribution, they would use one of those licenses. Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib, so yeah static linking to the lib is completely different, according to the terms of the license. If you are working professionally as a software developer, or even just appreciate open source contributions, please take licensing terms more seriously. Kind regards.
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  That's one of the thing that riles me up. The vast majority of programmers, especially in the open source community, don't take licensing seriously.
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  They certainly don't care enough to enforce it. >Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib Would you mind citing the clause that makes that distinction?
  - schemescape 4y ago
    I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but… > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. When statically linking, you’re including a copy of the software, so you’re required to include the notices. When dynamically linking, you’re not including the software. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
    - deadbeeves 4y ago
      Ah, I was assuming you're distributing the dynamic library in the package. That's typically what you do on Windows. If you're not doing that then yes, I suppose you don't need to include the license.

CameronNemo 4y ago

I disagree with both paragraphs. By choosing a license that requires attribution, developers are communicating a preference. MIT0 and 0BSD exist. If someone does not care about attribution, they would use one of those licenses. Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib, so yeah static linking to the lib is completely different, according to the terms of the license. If you are working professionally as a software developer, or even just appreciate open source contributions, please take licensing terms more seriously. Kind regards.

c0mptonFP 4y ago
That's one of the thing that riles me up. The vast majority of programmers, especially in the open source community, don't take licensing seriously.
deadbeeves 4y ago
They certainly don't care enough to enforce it. >Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib Would you mind citing the clause that makes that distinction?
- schemescape 4y ago
  I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but… > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. When statically linking, you’re including a copy of the software, so you’re required to include the notices. When dynamically linking, you’re not including the software. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
  - deadbeeves 4y ago
    Ah, I was assuming you're distributing the dynamic library in the package. That's typically what you do on Windows. If you're not doing that then yes, I suppose you don't need to include the license.