The specific problem the author mentions likely would not be solved by a more restrictive license. SEO squatters take whatever they want, and I doubt it would be worth it to sue them for breaking license terms.
Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
21–30 of 128 posts
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#22> 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.
He covers this in a couple places in the post. There is no requirement under MIT to redistribute the source for any changes you make or anything you build with it. If they redistribute the source then yes, but that’s not the concern in the post.
[deleted]
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#23First, you wanted people to use your tools and you gave them away for free under the MIT license.
Now you’re complaining that people are using your tools.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#24> 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?
Yes, and in some cases the GPL and AGPL.
> I want you to use things I've written. On top of that I don't believe it's my place to force you to then open source things you have written that expand upon my source code.
I'm a big proponent of the GPL and the AGPL, but no they don't sound like good solutions to the author's problems. It might solve the attribution issue but it's going to go counter to the author's other goals.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#25>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.
Please don't use CC licenses for code, it's not what they are designed for and the CC actively discourages it[0]. Consider using the AGPL[1] or similar instead.
[0] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#26> 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?
The attribution required by GPL/LGPL is fairly weak and in practice doesn't prevent the kind of "exploitation" discussed here. Ultimately if you don't market your work you will get steamrolled by people who do; I'm not sure this can or should be fixed.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#27I'm not going to go looking for them, but the impression I get of the sort of copycatters described is that they really won't care what the licence is, if the source is available they'll be there anyway - the blog post will just be complaining that it's against the terms of the licence (and probably not pursuing legal action) instead. I don't think it really matters. These things will exist, anyone who matters will r…
If they were actually violating the license, it'd be pretty easy and cheap to send DMCA takedowns to search engines, wouldn't it? (And possibly also whoever's hosting the copycat pages.)
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#28Not sure they can change the license at all?
The author doesn’t own copyright for the code changes they accepted over the years.
But kudos to the author for acknowledging they picked up a dumb license. Sad not to see the GPL or AGPL considered though.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#29I'm not going to go looking for them, but the impression I get of the sort of copycatters described is that they really won't care what the licence is, if the source is available they'll be there anyway - the blog post will just be complaining that it's against the terms of the licence (and probably not pursuing legal action) instead. I don't think it really matters. These things will exist, anyone who matters will r…
I get your point, but i guess it’s sadder to see people complying with the license terms in an assholish manner than see people completely breaching the terms of the license.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#30The author is sharing second thoughts about using the MIT license and yes, bad actors are going to break bad, but the point of licensing is to control re-use within the (enforceable) legal framework of copyright. Reciprocal licenses (thanks Lawrence Rosen[1] for that term less charged than copyleft or viral) cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3].
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/open-source-licensing/0...
[2] https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/gpl-code/
[3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-w...