By the way, whether you're linking statically or dynamically doesn't affect whether you ought to include the licenses of your dependencies. At least not for BSD, I'm less certain for MIT.
By the way, whether you're linking statically or dynamically doesn't affect whether you ought to include the licenses of your dependencies. At least not for BSD, I'm less certain for MIT.
By choosing a license that requires attribution, developers are communicating a preference. MIT0 and 0BSD exist. If someone does not care about attribution, they would use one of those licenses.
Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib, so yeah static linking to the lib is completely different, according to the terms of the license.
If you are working professionally as a software developer, or even just appreciate open source contributions, please take licensing terms more seriously.
Kind regards.
>Dynamically linking to a MIT lib is not the same as distributing an MIT lib
Would you mind citing the clause that makes that distinction?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
When statically linking, you’re including a copy of the software, so you’re required to include the notices.
When dynamically linking, you’re not including the software.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.