News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by fpoling on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:12AM (#15643040)
MIT license only states:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This is weaker than what is in a BSD license:

> Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

That is, BSD license explicitly requires copyright attribution for binaries, while MIT does not.

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by jhasse on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:26AM (#15643129)
So ... Intel violated the BSD license?
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by fpoling on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @09:06AM (#15643419)
That is a good point and explains the letter better. Apparently Intel cannot fulfill even minimal attribution requirements and the letter is a polite reminder for the company of its duties.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by TallGuyShort on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @10:56AM (#15644427)
Which is pretty sad - even most crappy mobile apps have a page where they list all open source projects including links to source, license terms, copyright attributions, etc.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by wolfgke on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @07:53AM (#15651885)
> So ... Intel violated the BSD license?

I wrote in

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651860

that the MINIX 3 developers openly say in their FAQ that different agreements with them are possible. I would bet such an agreement exists - I don't believe Intel's lawyers would have tolerated such a legal liability.