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

51–60 of 128 posts

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

#51

Post by LamaOfRuin »

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.

Except that the author then goes on to say how much they would prefer the derivative works to be open source, so it seems like they do want it but have been convinced they shouldn't. AGPL and an offer that other licenses would be available on request seems perfectly suitable.

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

#52

Post by frognumber »

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…

@author You should consider your (likely) emotional and (definitely) ideological reaction to AGPL / GPL-style licensing and be pragmatic about which license you use for what.

I always work from first principals, and have written code which includes proprietary, public domain, and various forms of copyleft. They all have their place.

The licensing discussions become... religious in nature. It should really a pragmatic question of what kinds of ecosystem and behaviors you want.

The choice is and isn't about freedom. Most people are constrained by capitalist free markets (or other organizational mechanisms). If I'm competing and I keep your code open and a competitor makes theirs proprietary, they have an advantage. Ergo, in many domains, you see people forced to engage in obnoxious behavior as you're seeing to be competitive. Everyone can WANT to keep things open (or any other good behavior) but NOT be able to do it.

Something like the GPL can force everyone to do what they wanted to do, if their freedom wasn't taken away by the invisible hand of the market. Ditto for many regulations. Things which seem constraining can be liberating once you put a market system around it.

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

#54

Post by falserum »

sowbug wrote: post #39

About 15 years ago I sold a car I owned. Its fair market value was $5,000, but to get that I'd have to wash it, put an ad on Craigslist, deal with the scammers who want to pay with fake money orders, meet with potential buyers, let them test-drive it, etc., and I didn't have the time or patience to do all that. So instead I sold it to a coworker at a low price, maybe $4,000. I sent an email to the company's water-coo…

> My instant emotional reaction was to feel vaguely cheated, or that the guy I sold it to was a sleaze.

Were you cheated? Probably not. But the guy was definitely on a sleaziness spectrum.

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

#56

Post by wmf »

mindcrime wrote: post #40
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?

It's interesting: generally speaking OSS licenses concern copyright for the code, but not trademarks for the name of the project. Licensing Project Foobar under an OSS license should not really be seen as granting permission to use the name "Project Foobar". But I just realized that the MIT license is worded in such a way that one could draw that inference, and it might stand up in court. Permission is hereby granted…

Or use Fooweasel in the source code and Foobar™ in the binaries.

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

#57

Post by p_l »

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.

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

#58

Post by p_l »

frognumber wrote: post #52
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…

@author You should consider your (likely) emotional and (definitely) ideological reaction to AGPL / GPL-style licensing and be pragmatic about which license you use for what. I always work from first principals, and have written code which includes proprietary, public domain, and various forms of copyleft. They all have their place. The licensing discussions become... religious in nature. It should really a pragmatic…

Except neither GPL, nor AGPL, would do anything about the case described. And that's even with AGPL violating freedom 0 through its tangled text.

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

#59

Post by p_l »

justinjlynn wrote: post #10
tomcam wrote: post #5

tldr; 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 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.

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

#60

Post by OJFord »

LamaOfRuin wrote: post #49
OJFord wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know, what I mean is that I think if you want it to be source available at all (not even 'Open Source' necessarily) you have to accept that this is going to happen.

(Or at least could, and the more it sounds like a small helper lib / WordPress plugin type thing the more likely. As much as some dislike it, this is a big selling point of GitHub and its stars etc. OP's things sound like something I'd find on Sourceforge, and not really be able to work out if it was original or not.)

Post reply on HN