Either give code away or don't. Don't demand contributions or be a control freak about their use because it's wasted energy and uncool.
Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
101–110 of 128 posts
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I wouldn't do it, just because I don't want to deal with everything. But everyone got exactly what they wanted. I see no sleaze.
Lying to a co-worker about why you are buying the car doesn't strike you as sleazy? Is there a degree of misrepresentation where you'd agree, or do you feel that lying can never be sleazy?
Oh yeah, that. Forgot about that. Yeah, that part is sleazy.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly acceptable to use whatever license you want, but then don't call it "open source."
You should stop using the generic term open source if what you really mean is Open Source InitiativeⓇ OSI Certified™ license.
Likewise, you should stop using the term open source if what you really mean is source available [0], especially with usage restrictions.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#104Earlier 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.
“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.
There is no valid freedom to abuse. It's like complaining that you're not free to enslave. It's not a valid argument.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly acceptable to use whatever license you want, but then don't call it "open source."
You should stop using the generic term open source if what you really mean is Open Source InitiativeⓇ OSI Certified™ license.
I myself rarely use the term "open source" but this does not stop others from (mis)using it. The mere fact that a term is generic does not mean that it is meaningless. If someone is genuinely unaware or confused about what the rest of the world thinks "open source" means, then I am happy to educate them. But if they are deliberately exploiting mis-use of the term to hide nefarious intent, then they can go to hell.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
IANAL, but that doesn't sound right. A "copy" would be internet visible code repository. If it doesn't contain the LICENSE file (assuming that's what OP has) it's in violation of that rule in my opinion.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#107Is there a license that only requires mentioning? Like exactly CC-BY but for code?
I'm in a similar position as the post. I make scripts and tools that I want to share online for anyone to use. I would like to allow everyone unrestricted access to it, but only if there is a mention and a link to the original page in a user-visible place.
You want to use the tool? Go on, but mention me as the author. You want to modify the tool privately for your own purposes and use it on your company? Go on, but mention me as the original author. You want to take the tool, include ads, and sell it? Go on, but mention me as the author.
This is due to past experiences with people taking my scripts and just reuploading saying they made it. I only want to be credited as the original author, that's it (and for the third example, the ad-filled copy, my idea is that if you get money from my work that's...ok, but only if you let people know where you got it to (so they can decide if they prefer the free original or yours).
MIT only requires to keep the license file, but from my understanding it's just a file that users may not even see. GPL (and AGPL) requires you to share your modifications, which is a restriction I don't really care.
CC-BY is the closest to it (in fact I think is exactly what I'm asking for) but for some reason it is not advised to be used on code...
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#108I'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."
Yeah that's my point, they're doing it because they can (literally can, as in the source is available) not because the licence allows them to.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here, and I agree. In the post I'm just lamenting my past choices. I gave people leeway and they used it. That is my failing, not theirs.
Genuine question: Relicensing to a more restrictive one would not stop them from copying it, right? And even if they do - would you considering pursuing legal actions against them?
It’s actually relatively easy as an individual to submit a DMCA to their hosting service.
That’s a pretty quick and effective route, and one I have done once before to get some non-public personal data that got leaked in a service hack removed from a blog.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you even read the case described? From the article: "Many of them have made minor or major modifications to the tools, and next to none provide the source to those modifications" "I wanted to promote community contributions, not to have them monetized by other people who don't even provide the source to their modifications " If you did, I don't think you understood it any better than the AGPL (or freedom zero). A…
Yeah, I've read the text. And it's trivial to be compliant with AGPL in this case without any effective change to the behaviour or problems caused. Yes, there would be source code link somewhere, but it can take 0.01% of the SEO spam and be still compliant.
There are plenty of examples of BSD-licensed code authors being burnt like this (including original ones from Berkeley, which were an impetus for the creation of the GPL; there were proprietary Unix systems built on top of volunteer-written code competing with the original systems).
Can you point me to any concrete examples of authors of AGPL-licensed code being burnt like this?
Circumventing the AGPL is trivial only on paper. It's hard in any human organization. In practice, parasites usually keep a long distance from the AGPL for reasons which will make sense to you if you sketch out what circumvention means in practice, what it means for org design, and the ROI there (not to mention the social signalling; not all parties are malicious).