Comment by GuB-42
2 years ago
In fact, they already don't care. MIT requires attribution, and the author mentions in the article that "With noted exception, they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back."
2 years ago
In fact, they already don't care. MIT requires attribution, and the author mentions in the article that "With noted exception, they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back."
MIT doesn't require public attribution on the user's website. Here's what it requires:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
If you leave the MIT license anywhere in your server alongside the licensed code, with no public access, you are complying.
IANAL, but that doesn't sound right. A "copy" would be internet visible code repository. If it doesn't contain the LICENSE file (assuming that's what OP has) it's in violation of that rule in my opinion.
Your rationale makes sense if the software is distributed. Providing an output (observe that an output is not the software) through the internet is not considered distribution of the software.
The license doesn't require anyone to provide a copy of the license and attribution along with the output, only when the software is distributed.
Yeah that's my point, they're doing it because they can (literally can, as in the source is available) not because the licence allows them to.