"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:ebhaxqxtjuccyqfya...@forum.dlang.org... > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 09:58:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> There's no attribution in MIT. > > »The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > in all copies or substantial portions of the Software« - I am not a > lawyer, but I what makes you so sure that binaries don't fall under this > requirement as well? > > The Boost people also seem to interpret MIT as requiring binary > attribution; Dave Abrahams mentioned the binary clause in Boost as a > difference to MIT in his OSI approval request at least ([1]). >
I'm pretty sure that "attribution" typically refers to the requirement that software X which *uses* software Y must include notice that software Y is being used. But you're right that MIT doesn't make it clear whether binary-only redistributions of software Y must contain the license and copyright notice.