11–20 of 128 posts
> I am considering relicensing my tools under some sort of Attribution-ShareAlike license similar to the BY-SA the content on this site is licensed under.
Wouldn't the LGPL be well-suited to this?
I don't think it really matters. These things will exist, anyone who matters will realise they're not legit. They won't make significant sales (without significant added value) it won't detract from your reputation; etc.
> Many of them have made minor or major modifications to the tools, and next to none provide the source to those modifications. > I am considering relicensing my tools under some sort of Attribution-ShareAlike license similar to the BY-SA the content on this site is licensed under. Wouldn't the LGPL be well-suited to this?
> they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back But this is simply not true. MIT requires keeping the copyright notice intact, which would be a credit. People that aren’t going to follow this requirement weren’t going to follow the GPL or whatever alternative you pick either, so either sue them or don’t worry about which one you picked exactly.
If they redistribute the source then yes, but that’s not the concern in the post.
Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37111145 - Aug 2023 (7 comments)
> Many of them have made minor or major modifications to the tools, and next to none provide the source to those modifications. > I am considering relicensing my tools under some sort of Attribution-ShareAlike license similar to the BY-SA the content on this site is licensed under. Wouldn't the LGPL be well-suited to this?
Is it ok that other people take the code, modify it but don't open the modifications? If not, then GPL or AGPL. If you want that they can still build sth around it, but otherwise not modifying your library, then LGPL.
Or is this ok, but the main issue is no attribution to the original source? BSD licence maybe? Or Apache? Or what else?
> they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back But this is simply not true. MIT requires keeping the copyright notice intact, which would be a credit. People that aren’t going to follow this requirement weren’t going to follow the GPL or whatever alternative you pick either, so either sue them or don’t worry about which one you picked exactly.
GPLv3, on the other hand, is much more explicit about saying that the copyright notice must appear in the actual user interface of the application.