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

121–128 of 128 posts

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

#121

Post by p_l »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #119
p_l wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost all companies which produce software under GPL or AGPL dual license with a commercial paid option that comes with no strings attached. Personally I find this disingenuous. There was at least for a time a trend (or at least noted by some) of using AGPL with copyright assignment[1] as a trojan horse to force customers into commercial licensing once due diligence came in. [1] I consider copyright attribution to…

Copyright attribution is necessary to avoid tombstoning the project. Imagine you have something using AGPL, and some high profile court cases change the landscape of copyright, resulting in the arrival of new, next generation licenses. For example, let's assume AGPL is defeated in court. It is effectively impossible to adopt a different license without either: - getting consent from all authors/copyright holders. - r…

Copyright assignment is also why Oracle could close back Solaris, including 3rd party code.

Any form of copyright assignment that isn't "here, fuck me over if you want" will be similarly fraught with peril because majority of the world considers copyright assignment to be same category of contract as AGPL/GPL/etc.

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

#122

Post by hervem »

p_l wrote: post #57
RobotToaster wrote: post #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... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-…

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

Or just like MPL too :-)

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

#123

Post by tomcam »

p_l wrote: post #59
justinjlynn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The (A)GPL is there for a good reason (in part, this one - ensuring one's work and other's work on it remains free and open source and commercial freeloaders can't get a free ride), and trademark law ensures you retain control of your software's brand. MIT and BSD... well, look where they come from - they're not designed with those purposes in mind. If you care about an aspect of a licensing solution, use a lice…

AGPL does not stop that kind of use at all, though. As long as you stick to making the application have a quine functionality on all channels, it doesn't matter if the link is 0.01% of text on page compared to SEO spam.

But owning the trademark gives you some control over how the mark is used.

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

#125

Post by junon »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #76
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?

Attribution and retaining a copyright notice are two separate things.

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

#126

Post by justinjlynn »

p_l wrote: post #59
justinjlynn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The (A)GPL is there for a good reason (in part, this one - ensuring one's work and other's work on it remains free and open source and commercial freeloaders can't get a free ride), and trademark law ensures you retain control of your software's brand. MIT and BSD... well, look where they come from - they're not designed with those purposes in mind. If you care about an aspect of a licensing solution, use a lice…

AGPL does not stop that kind of use at all, though. As long as you stick to making the application have a quine functionality on all channels, it doesn't matter if the link is 0.01% of text on page compared to SEO spam.

The statement "(A)GPL" probably should've been written "GPL/AGPL"... apologies for the miscommunication.

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

#127

Post by ecf »

rmbyrro wrote: post #120
ecf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thoughts regarding open source are borderline irrational when places like Amazon will copy and paste your repository and start making billions off of it.

What's the problem with that? If I didn't want others to use my code or make money with it, I wouldn't have gone open source in the first place. I'd rather use an AWS service with an open source core than a closed-source service. Migrating away from AWS in the former case is arguably easier than in the latter. And this is because of the open principle.

> If I didn't want others to use my code or make money with it, I wouldn't have gone open source in the first place

> I'd rather use an AWS service with an open source core than a closed-source service.

I guess it’s just a problem with the people who work in software engineering. You won’t use anything closed source, but also don’t care if other engineer’s valuable open-source tools are hijacked by companies with billions in resources.

Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

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

#128

Post by y2- »

So is this the new way to hack personal cellphones? I have nothing at all to do with technology but The Open Source Software License has been on my personal cellphones for about 5 years. It started with a person I knew cyber stalking me by controlling my phone. Settings of that phone showed there was another device with more access to my account than I did my phone was used once in awhile. Google maps showed his contact name and that he knew my beginning specific location ETA to my next specific location etc. he blocked important contacts and emails. It just got worse as he got better at it by using the MIT Open Source Software. He got into my MGH Patient Gateway and changed my medical records and not to make me look good he did it to hurt me and make me look legitimately paranoid/ crazy/ drug addict etc. I thought he was a friend and had no idea until about a year ago what was actually happening and because it was during Pandemic my Doctors/ Surgeons don't realize my records were changed . How can I stop this?
Post reply on HN