Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by driax 4011 days ago
Though, just a language simplification of the MIT License. (not that that is bad). However it is not as permissive as the 1-clause BSD spelled out in the article, since it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution. The Boost license is one of the licenses I remember to be in effect the same as that 1-clause BSD license. Which is nice since you can use the Boost header-only libraries without having to consider where you going to credit them, much like any standard library in most languages.
1 comments
fenomas 4011 days ago
> it still requires copyright notice in binary distribution.

Really? I thought MIT/ISC just meant one can't remove that notice when redistributing the source. Is one supposed to do something particular with binaries as well?

link
gulpahum 4011 days ago
The MIT license says: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

Typically, "Software" means also binaries [1]. The MIT license text is usually included in the software documentation or about box. If you are not sure where to put it, then ask the open source project owners how to attribute them.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/10681216

link
fluidcruft 4011 days ago
In some sense aren't binaries modified versions of the source?
link