[cyphar]

MIT only requires source attribution. It's the BSD licenses that require attribution for binary forms of redistribution. Still, it is good manners and good cover-your-arse practice to attribute whatever free software work they used (Google does this with their giant "open source licenses" page).

[Benjamin_Dobell]

MIT has no special language regarding source or binary distribution, it simply states:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

It's up to a court to decide what "copies or substantial portions of the Software" means.

Personally, I've always very much interpreted that to mean both binary and source.

[cyphar]

Well, you could argue that the notice is "present" (in a very esoteric sense) in a binary distribution of the software because it was present in the source code used to build it. You could also argue that a compiled version of a program isn't a "copy or substantial portion" of the Software (compilation is effectively a form of translation, which is a derivative work under the Copyright Act in the US -- and not just a copy).

Personally I would still include it in both, but I always had the impression that MIT was looser than BSD-2-Clause about this. BSD-2-Clause explicitly states that binary distribution needs to include the notice in "the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution", and I have a feeling that the license authors might've had a reason to want to be explicit about it.