Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
1–10 of 128 posts
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#2[deleted]
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#3I can relate. After some years I first switched to the Apache 2 license, later for some code AGPLv3. My stuff is mostly garbage and some software debt but who knows ;)
Now I start leaning towards: if one doesn’t want others to use it, don’t release it.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#4> 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.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#5tldr; OP felt that releasing libraries under MIT License benefited the community, but releasing apps was a mistake because other sites bested them in the SEO game. That probably caused a Bing blackout, and certainly meant losing in SEO to crapware-filled sites.
I'm thinking the optimal course would be a GPL release + trademarking the software name so that there could be more control about attribution and what sites get to use the name?
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#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.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#7> 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.
[deleted]
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#8Scammers gonna scam, whatever license you use - but, that said, this is the exact use case that the AGPL license is made for.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#9> 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.
Agreed. His problem isn't the license. His problem is thinking a text file is going to stop a bad actor.
Re: Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)
#10tldr; OP felt that releasing libraries under MIT License benefited the community, but releasing apps was a mistake because other sites bested them in the SEO game. That probably caused a Bing blackout, and certainly meant losing in SEO to crapware-filled sites. I'm thinking the optimal course would be a GPL release + trademarking the software name so that there could be more control about attribution and what sites g…
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 license designed and fit for purpose - just as you'd use a library designed and fit for purpose.