Hi Brian,
OpenSource.org is not a legal services organization and can't give you
legal advice.
http://opensource.org/faq#legal-advice
If the MIT license software is not *distributed* *in* your software or
*with* your software (as libraries) either in source or binary form,
then the MIT license ma
On 09/10/14 21:11, Brian Hasson wrote:
> We are not redistributing the MIT licensed software, but rather using
> the software in the build/development of our software. Thanks.
IANAL, IANYL, but: no distribution -> no obligation.
Gerv
___
License-discu
On 14/10/14 08:54, John Cowan wrote:
Since you are not distributing copies, I don't see how the requirement
to distribute the license can affect you.
I don't think he meant he was only using it as part of the tool chain.
I think he meant he was only distributing it in binary form.
In any cas
Brian Hasson scripsit:
> We are not redistributing the MIT licensed software, but rather using
> the software in the build/development of our software. Thanks.
Since you are not distributing copies, I don't see how the requirement
to distribute the license can affect you.
--
John Cowan
In that case, the answer is simple: Seek legal advise.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
As a follow up note below, the reason for the question is that we are
developing a software product by using certain OSI products governed by the MIT
License. The question is whether under that license, we need to provide
attribution (i.e., including the copyright and permissions statement) in
6 matches
Mail list logo
