Hacker News Reader

Comment by makkesk8 | Hacker News Reader

I highly doubt you can count minified as "compiled" Minification is a form of compression. Compilation is a form of conversion from a high level to a lower level interpretation and that is fundamentally different.

But then again I'm not a lawyer :)

View on HN

The intent is for attribution to be kept with the code. If your minifier removes the attribution you’re likely in violation.

And the minifier’s job is to remove things like comments which is right where the attribution is likely to be.

Now if a third party thing like a cloudflare CDN were minifyer for you and removed it then who violated the license?

There is an informal standard in which copyright notices are annotated with a leading "/*!” to let minifiers know that they should be preserved.

See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11248363/the-purpose-of-...

If the CDN is just a part of your architecture that you voluntarily setup then you’re likely the one violating. Even if not the CDN very likely has an indemnification clause in their contract which would shift that liability back to you.

Hey, Substack CTO here. We actually don't minify or modify the files in question at all and simply link to the versions hosted on the public jsdelivr CDN (which includes a link to the license right at the top of the file)

First off: weird take, and one that would be unlikely to hold up. But secondly: what is that supposed to matter, anyway? That is, why are you litigating the definition of the word "compiled"? No finding, whether for or against your argument, would have any bearing on questions about compliance with the terms of the MIT license, so the word's definition and its significance is null. It's a total red herring and a distraction to bring up in any discussion on the topic.

I figure compilation is a big tent and this counts, but imagine

--rename-properties WARNING: renaming properties requires deeper analysis, considered compilation in the US

Reply on news.ycombinator.com