[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Binaries and MIT/expat license interpretative tradition

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:24:24AM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> (My question is not Debian-related, but I figured the people who know 
>> the answer read this list.)
>> The usual interpretation (seen in the list archives) of the MIT/expat 
>> license seems to be the that the copyright notice needs to be retained 
>> in the source but does not have to be displayed by binaries.
>> The license does not say that the binaries do not constitute a copy of 
>> "the Software". What's the basis of the interpretation and that the 
>> copyright notices do not need to be grepped from the source and stuffed 
>> in an about box or similarly placed on binaries?
> The copyright notice does need to be included with the binaries. On
> Debian systems it is placed in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright. This
> isn't a particularly strange or restrictive thing to require...

This is different from the requirement of some licenses that a notice
be displayed on the console, or in a dialog box, when the program is
run.  I think this is what the OP was afraid of.

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: