MIT makes no distinction between source and artifacts. The requirement to include a notice stems from any distribution of the software.

https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Thank you.

Not sure what you want. A link where this is clearly outlined? The license is two sentences and sets out the terms.

The repeated distinction between source code and "artifacts" in this context is pure make-believe. The license doesn't even have those words in it, let alone say something like "Redistribution and use in source form requires inclusion of this permission notice and the above copyright notice, but if you're just building a product and publishing it as non-source code artifacts instead of distributing source, then lol don't worry about it bro" (or whatever it is the people here seem to think).

The CodeMirror maintainer definitely expects people who build closed source stuff to include the notices that are in the CodeMirror LICENSE file. And anyone telling you the license doesn't require this (and e.g. this is a peculiarity of CodeMirror itself) is delusional.

Well, there's tons of conflicting advice out there if that's the case. Top result on DDG links through to this answer: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5828/where-wo...

And this was my understanding of how it works for artifacts. You don't have to attribute in the software itself, just the code.

You get it that you're proving the point that comments like those are harmful, right?

Well, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. Just seeking clarity.

Not sure if you were referring directly to me, but I don't think my comment was harmful. Others may have also been led astray and an exchange like this might be educational for them to read.

The way that "Well, there's tons of conflicting advice out there if that's the case" was situated/employed in the discussion makes it sound like an attempt to say that there are merits on both sides of the argument--that there are conflicting opinions and the argument is as of yet still unresolved. The problem is that the comments you linked to are uninformed and just flat out wrong--bad advice from people who don't know what they're talking about and in no position to be giving advice. (Another example: the comment by samatman above, which should be buried in downvotes but inexplicably is not even in the grey--and I suspect is actually ranked somewhere at >1.) The only prudent thing to do is to clearly bracket it as such, in order to minimize harm.