Given the actual condition being imposed on users of MIT/Expat-licensed assets:<p><pre><code> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
</code></pre>
I'm failing to see what the hold-up is here.<p>- If it's an SVG file, what's wrong with including the license text as a comment?<p>- If it's a raster image, what's wrong with including the license text in the metadata?<p>The way I'm reading this, as long as the license text is somehow embedded in the asset - whether or not it's actually visible to someone viewing it as an image - then that fulfills the terms of the license, no?<p>If such an embedded license is sufficient, then I fail to see what the problem is. Is it just file size? Are these people really <i>so</i> averse to content creators being credited for their work that said consumers of said works consider embedded attribution/licensing unacceptable (and why)?<p>If such an embedded license is <i>not</i> sufficient, then why is it insufficient?<p>Obligatory: I ain't a lawyer. Given the sorts of quibbling that seems to be happening over a three-paragraph license that's ubiquitous in the world of software, I don't envy the actual lawyers one bit.