Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

donatstudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#71

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #64
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #6

> Most irksome of all, in a fair number of cases they sit centrally on pages covered in ads and SEO keywords. My tools are being associated with a genuinely bad user experience. For the record, any license that does not allow users to do that would NOT be a free software license.

I hate that people think they can control the definitions of "free" and "open" . I don't care about these biased propaganda definitions. If you want to promote your definition use a branded trademarkable name, don't try to steal our shared use of common words.

It's useful when words mean things. That goes double when the words are used for marketing. Like, yeah in theory it's odd for the OSI to define "Open Source", but in practice it turns out the only people who seem to object to this are people who really want the social capital from calling their stuff open source while actually screwing over the users.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#72

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jdbernard wrote: post #69
gtirloni wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks they are not violating anything though.

That's why he is regretting the use of the MIT license. He wonders, now, if having chosen a less permissive license would have given him grounds to shut them down, because they would be in violation.

Hang on - permissive licenses still require attribution. If they're not doing that, then he can absolutely DCMA them.

(I think; IANAL)

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#73

Post by jonathankoren »

jdiff wrote: post #37
jonathankoren wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. His problem isn't the license. His problem is thinking a text file is going to stop a bad actor.

The text file isn't to stop the bad actor, it's to let you send DMCA requests to their host/search engines.

But he's not doing that. He's changing his text file.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#74

Post by goku12 »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #21

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.

While I agree that this isn't a licensing issue, it presents a malware threat for regular users - especially of the more popular software. If you care about the safety of the users, it may be well worth knocking the squatters off search results using DMCA. (In this particular case, I believe that attribution is required by the license).

In the long term, we need ways to make genuine sources more discoverable and verifiable.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#75

Post by spencerflem »

rmbyrro wrote: post #70
p_l wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL wouldn't prevent any of the abuses he describes, though.

It's not an abuse. This is by design. It's one thing many don't get about Open Source. The goal is to not discriminate against any kind of use. If you want to discriminate users by how they use it, then you don't want open source.

Its not illegal, but it is abuse

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#76

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

donatj wrote: post #33

Author here. This was a frustrated rant after discovering these people serving my circle generator and frankly moreso my .htaccess rewrite generator on sites plastered with ads get more traffic than I do. It's honestly a little childish. I'd take the whole post with a grain of salt. I used to to have a little cottage industry that helped me pay the bills of people finding my rewrite generator, not knowing what they'r…

Practical question - though IANAL - if they're not providing attribution, then aren't they out of compliance even with the MIT license, in which case you could hit them with a DMCA take down?

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#77

Post by rmbyrro »

GuB-42 wrote: post #67
OJFord wrote: post #12

I'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…

In fact, they already don't care. MIT requires attribution, and the author mentions in the article that "With noted exception, they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back."

MIT doesn't require public attribution on the user's website. Here's what it requires:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

If you leave the MIT license anywhere in your server alongside the licensed code, with no public access, you are complying.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#78

Post by prepend »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #64
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #6

> Most irksome of all, in a fair number of cases they sit centrally on pages covered in ads and SEO keywords. My tools are being associated with a genuinely bad user experience. For the record, any license that does not allow users to do that would NOT be a free software license.

I hate that people think they can control the definitions of "free" and "open" . I don't care about these biased propaganda definitions. If you want to promote your definition use a branded trademarkable name, don't try to steal our shared use of common words.

“Free” means something. If you want to stop people distributing your software through a site that has ads, then it’s not “free.”

“Open source” means something too. The control people have is in using shared definitions.

Language is malleable, so if enough people use a word incorrectly it changes the definition. But those people get to be called wrong for years until enough people misuse it to make it right.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#79

Post by spencerflem »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #71
downWidOutaFite wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that people think they can control the definitions of "free" and "open" . I don't care about these biased propaganda definitions. If you want to promote your definition use a branded trademarkable name, don't try to steal our shared use of common words.

It's useful when words mean things. That goes double when the words are used for marketing. Like, yeah in theory it's odd for the OSI to define "Open Source", but in practice it turns out the only people who seem to object to this are people who really want the social capital from calling their stuff open source while actually screwing over the users.

I think there are plenty of arguments for non-OSI approved licences and I don't think "screwing over their users" is even remotely close to why people choose them.

Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)

#80

Post by rmbyrro »

spencerflem wrote: post #75
rmbyrro wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an abuse. This is by design. It's one thing many don't get about Open Source. The goal is to not discriminate against any kind of use. If you want to discriminate users by how they use it, then you don't want open source.

Its not illegal, but it is abuse

If you consider this an abuse, you're not in favor of the spirit of open source to avoid discrimination.

You think uses should be discriminated between acceptable and abusive.

It's OK to think that way, but it's not an open source way of thinking.

Post reply on HN