SugarCube has traditionally used a permissive implied license (basically: make whatever you want with it, I don't care). However, since you're not the first person to ask about its license, I've published a new release (v1.0.7) changing SugarCube's licensing to an express license, specifically the Simplified BSD License. The end result is largely the same (still: make whatever you want with it, I don't care).
Just to clarify, if I use SugarCube to write a story, then I don't need to make the Copyright statement from the license agreement visible to the reader? I've not noticed anyone doing this...
Can I assume that SugarCube has taken care of embedding it in the HTML itself? Each story would seem to include elements of the SugarCube binary distribution.
If you're distributing the compiled HTML file itself, then you do not need to worry about including the license.
If you're distributing the compiled story bundled within a binary wrapper of some sort (e.g. wrapping it within NW.js or something), then you are required to include the license (within the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution).
Comments
Can I assume that SugarCube has taken care of embedding it in the HTML itself? Each story would seem to include elements of the SugarCube binary distribution.
If you're distributing the compiled story bundled within a binary wrapper of some sort (e.g. wrapping it within NW.js or something), then you are required to include the license (within the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution).