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

41–50 of 128 posts

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

#41

Post by gtirloni »

csande17 wrote: post #27
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…

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.)

It looks they are not violating anything though.

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

#42

Post by jowea »

calzone5116 wrote: post #35

> In some cases, they are even beating me in search results for my own tools. Correct me if im wrong but the license does not give them the right to name. Author should still be able to request them to change the name?

Wouldn't that fall under trademark and not copyright law?

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

#43

Post by gtirloni »

OJFord wrote: post #32
znpy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I suppose I'm saying I don't think they have that arseholish manner - they are simply replicating it because it is available. I.e. if you don't like it the solution is not AGPL or source available but no reuse allowrd or whatever, it's closed source.

Exactly. If you don't agree with the OSS terms, don't license your code with an OSS license. OSS is not the default answer because there's no default answer. You have to think about what you want to achieve and license accordingly. Even then, there will be bad actors who don't care about you suing them, that will happen with any license (OSS or not).

It pains me to say this because I started in a proprietary software world early in my career and I hate it for 99% of the use cases but... proprietary licenses do have a place.

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

#45

Post by pcthrowaway »

freedomben wrote: post #24
heavyset_go wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why I suggested LGPL, which allows the software to be used by closed-source or proprietary software, but any changes to the LGPL-ed library must be made available under the same license.

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

#47

Post by binkHN »

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…

Thanks for chiming in. Before I delved into Linux, I spent a lot of time with the BSDs. Because of the more permissive license used by the BSDs, I learned that the work put into these projects is for the benefit of mankind. Whether that's an individual, small project, or a greedy corporation, everyone and all get to benefit and, yes, you've seen the negative side of that.

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

#48

Post by mattdesl »

My advice: split your work into two camps, the types of projects you would be happy if everybody used and benefited from (even without crediting you), and the types of projects that you would not be happy seeing others republish without your name. Choose a permissive license like MIT for the former, and keep the latter closed source.

In my case[1], although I have several hundred MIT repos, I have many others that I feel an emotional connection to and do not share publicly.

[1] https://github.com/mattdesl

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

#49

Post by LamaOfRuin »

OJFord wrote: post #32
znpy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I suppose I'm saying I don't think they have that arseholish manner - they are simply replicating it because it is available. I.e. if you don't like it the solution is not AGPL or source available but no reuse allowrd or whatever, it's closed source.

The author spells out that they absolutely don't want it closed source. They do want the common requirements of copyleft licences, so it seems that the solution is one of those.

The author also thinks the people they're upset about are jerks, even though they fully acknowledge they have the right to be. They're fairly clear about that. And even if they continued to be jerks, the author would be happier if the license they had chosen required them to be slightly less jerkish.

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

#50

Post by pcthrowaway »

albertzeyer wrote: post #18

So, what does the author actually wants from the licence? Is it ok that other people take the code, modify it but don't open the modifications? If not, then GPL or AGPL. If you want that they can still build sth around it, but otherwise not modifying your library, then LGPL. Or is this ok, but the main issue is no attribution to the original source? BSD licence maybe? Or Apache? Or what else?

> If you want that they can still build sth around it, but otherwise not modifying your library, then LGPL.

They can modify the library under LGPL, they just have to redistribute the source for those modifications under LGPL also

Post reply on HN