Just when I thought I understood the MIT license, I'm back to confused. Can you link me to where this is clearly outlined? Do you need to attribute somewhere in artifacts or not?
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, 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.
Don't look to people who don't know what they're talking about to "clear things up" for you. If you think they have any qualms about leaving you to deal with the blowback after misleading you with uninformed takes (and pointing the finger at you for putting your faith in them to begin with), then you're setting yourself up to be burned.
There's a reason why everyone who has their ducks in a row (in other words, people with competent legal counsel along with something to lose, e.g. Mozilla, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) will bake something like about:license into the stuff they work on, even if it's buried in some "open source licenses" entry of an About screen reachable by the last menu item in the system settings. Spoiler alert: it's because they have to—in order to comply with the terms of the license. It's not because they just think it's the nice thing to do. (And definitely not because it's fun and easy to do, because it's not.)
