TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

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

126 pointsby marbuover 1 year ago

33 comments

RobotToasterover 1 year ago
&gt;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.<p>Please don&#x27;t use CC licenses for code, it&#x27;s not what they are designed for and the CC actively discourages it[0]. Consider using the AGPL[1] or similar instead.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;creativecommons.org&#x2F;faq&#x2F;#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;creativecommons.org&#x2F;faq&#x2F;#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;why-affero-gpl.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gnu.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;why-affero-gpl.html</a>
评论 #39414705 未加载
an1sotropyover 1 year ago
The author is sharing second thoughts about using the MIT license and yes, bad actors are going to break bad, but the point of licensing is to control re-use within the (enforceable) legal framework of copyright. Reciprocal licenses (thanks Lawrence Rosen[1] for that term less charged than copyleft or viral) cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oreilly.com&#x2F;library&#x2F;view&#x2F;open-source-licensing&#x2F;0131487876&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oreilly.com&#x2F;library&#x2F;view&#x2F;open-source-licensing&#x2F;0...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tp-link.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;support&#x2F;gpl-code&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tp-link.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;support&#x2F;gpl-code&#x2F;</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zdnet.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;software-freedom-conservancy-wins-big-step-forward-for-open-source-rights&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zdnet.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;software-freedom-conservancy-w...</a>
评论 #39414463 未加载
AshamedCaptainover 1 year ago
&gt; 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.<p>For the record, any license that does not allow users to do that would NOT be a free software license.
评论 #39414870 未加载
评论 #39414815 未加载
评论 #39414065 未加载
OJFordover 1 year ago
I&#x27;m not going to go looking for them, but the impression I get of the sort of copycatters described is that they really won&#x27;t care what the licence is, if the source is available they&#x27;ll be there anyway - the blog post will just be complaining that it&#x27;s against the terms of the licence (and probably not pursuing legal action) instead.<p>I don&#x27;t think it really matters. These things will exist, anyone who matters will realise they&#x27;re not legit. They won&#x27;t make significant sales (without significant added value) it won&#x27;t detract from your reputation; etc.
评论 #39414865 未加载
评论 #39414210 未加载
评论 #39414226 未加载
donatjover 1 year ago
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&#x27;s honestly a little childish. I&#x27;d take the whole post with a grain of salt.<p>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&#x27;re doing, and reaching out for help with their htaccess files. It&#x27;s been a couple years now since anyone has reached out. On realizing that, I started looking into it.<p>Part of that decline is clearly Apache becoming less relevant, but the other part (I think anyway) is that I&#x27;ve fallen way down the SEO ranks, frustratingly behind people hosting my own tools.<p>Like I said, it&#x27;s a rant. Think of it as such.<p>Everything is still MIT and by all likelihood going to stay that way.
评论 #39414919 未加载
评论 #39414610 未加载
评论 #39414666 未加载
TrianguloYover 1 year ago
Is there a license that only requires mentioning? Like exactly CC-BY but for code?<p>I&#x27;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.<p>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.<p>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&#x27;s it (and for the third example, the ad-filled copy, my idea is that if you get money from my work that&#x27;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).<p>MIT only requires to keep the license file, but from my understanding it&#x27;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&#x27;t really care.<p>CC-BY is the closest to it (in fact I think is exactly what I&#x27;m asking for) but for some reason it is not advised to be used on code...
dflockover 1 year ago
Scammers gonna scam, whatever license you use - but, that said, this is the exact use case that the AGPL license is made for.
dangover 1 year ago
Discussed (a bit) at the time:<p><i>Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37111145">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37111145</a> - Aug 2023 (7 comments)
Scubabear68over 1 year ago
The specific problem the author mentions likely would not be solved by a more restrictive license. SEO squatters take whatever they want, and I doubt it would be worth it to sue them for breaking license terms.
评论 #39414909 未加载
reactordevover 1 year ago
First, you wanted people to use your tools and you gave them away for free under the MIT license.<p>Now you’re complaining that people are using your tools.<p>You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
评论 #39414256 未加载
seba_dos1over 1 year ago
Simply don&#x27;t shy away from copyleft licenses. MIT has its uses, but GPL is there for you too.
mattdeslover 1 year ago
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.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mattdesl">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;mattdesl</a>
calzone5116over 1 year ago
&gt; In some cases, they are even beating me in search results for my own tools.<p>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?
评论 #39414472 未加载
评论 #39414501 未加载
y2-over 1 year ago
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&#x2F; crazy&#x2F; 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&#x2F; Surgeons don&#x27;t realize my records were changed . How can I stop this?
LadyCailinover 1 year ago
&gt; they don&#x27;t credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back<p>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.
评论 #39414117 未加载
评论 #39414142 未加载
评论 #39414069 未加载
rad_gruchalskiover 1 year ago
I 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 ;)<p>Now I start leaning towards: if one doesn’t want others to use it, don’t release it.
zingelshuherover 1 year ago
Well, with any license releasing code for useful tools will result in unlimited &#x27;borrowings&#x27;. In most cases enforcement against small player is difficult. And impossible if it becomes popular in darknet&#x2F;underground. My recommendation to the author: forget about it. You can add more watermarks in the code, or stop coding at all blaming a.. bad people, someone specifically, the laws, etc. if it make you feel better. As for me if I give something away I don&#x27;t expect my axx to be kissed. Still can add it to my resume.
ellis0nover 1 year ago
You are not alone here. For the past 15 years, I&#x27;ve been trying to figure out how this works and what license to apply to the new programming language. It seems like a strange waste of time, as with AI coming, it will be easy to bypass licenses and clone your code legally, and managers are already discussing this. I think this is the reason for the decline in the software startup market.
QuantumGover 1 year ago
As someone who prefers the MIT license, I honestly couldn&#x27;t give a shit if you&#x27;re using it to make billions by kicking children.
albertzeyerover 1 year ago
So, what does the author actually wants from the licence?<p>Is it ok that other people take the code, modify it but don&#x27;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.<p>Or is this ok, but the main issue is no attribution to the original source? BSD licence maybe? Or Apache? Or what else?
评论 #39414644 未加载
pcthrowawayover 1 year ago
&gt; Many of them have made minor or major modifications to the tools, and next to none provide the source to those modifications.<p>&gt; 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.<p>Wouldn&#x27;t the LGPL be well-suited to this?
评论 #39414183 未加载
评论 #39414126 未加载
评论 #39414111 未加载
wtracyover 1 year ago
I thought the MIT license required attribution, but on rereading the requirement is pretty weak: You&#x27;re only required to keep the original copyright notice.
tomcamover 1 year ago
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.<p>I&#x27;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?
评论 #39414071 未加载
shartsover 1 year ago
Just use BSD license then? Isn’t that the most permissive of all?
znpyover 1 year ago
Not sure they can change the license at all?<p>The author doesn’t own copyright for the code changes they accepted over the years.<p>But kudos to the author for acknowledging they picked up a dumb license. Sad not to see the GPL or AGPL considered though.
评论 #39415080 未加载
svilen_dobrevover 1 year ago
i&#x27;ve been in similar situation..<p>just keep going. ignore them. They will disappear sooner or later.. while you will keep showing up. That IS what matters.<p>IMO
adrrover 1 year ago
If they are modifying the frontend so it’s their own code, no copy left license would work because no copyright would be triggered. Output of the tool wouldn’t be covered.
anon-sre-srmover 1 year ago
Either give code away or don&#x27;t. Don&#x27;t demand contributions or be a control freak about their use because it&#x27;s wasted energy and uncool.
apapapaover 1 year ago
Change the license?
sowbugover 1 year ago
About 15 years ago I sold a car I owned. Its fair market value was $5,000, but to get that I&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;s water-cooler list and included a photo of the car. Within probably 15 minutes someone replied saying the car would be perfect for his mom. By the end of the day, I had received a personal check, signed over the title, etc., and I thought that was the end of it.<p>A few days later another coworker emailed me with a screenshot of a Craigslist ad for a car like mine. In fact, it actually was for my car! The first coworker listed it for something like $5,250, and by the time Coworker #2 pinged him, he&#x27;d already sold it for that price. Coworker #1 didn&#x27;t even take a new picture -- he just reposted the one I&#x27;d taken!<p>At first I felt exploited. Here I was, being nice to my coworkers and offering a discounted car. And I later confirmed that the guy who bought it actually did lie about intending it for his mom, which made the whole thing seem even more unsavory. But I calmed down after a few minutes. I remembered that my plan was to sell it to a coworker rather than deal with the scumbags on Craigslist, and I was willing to take a big discount for that. &quot;Being nice to my coworkers&quot; was just the story that I told myself to justify my priorities. I got exactly what I wanted out of the original deal: an easy way to get rid of a car I didn&#x27;t need anymore. And unlike me, someone else was willing to put in the effort to flip the car and extract that last $1,000 or so of value. My instant emotional reaction was to feel vaguely cheated, or that the guy I sold it to was a sleaze. But he didn&#x27;t actually hurt me. I got what I wanted, and so did he.<p>In the case of this software tool, I&#x27;d ask the article author whether, in retrospect, he wishes that he&#x27;d kept the tool rights and gone down the SEO rabbit hole to monetize it for himself. Let&#x27;s say further than he was successful, obtaining $X&#x2F;month in ad revenue. Would he feel better in that case? I&#x27;d guess not; for most values of $X, he&#x27;d conclude it wasn&#x27;t worth his time. But what happens once he concedes that he&#x27;s not going to put in the effort? Does he <i>still</i> not open-source it solely to prevent anyone from monetizing it? That&#x27;s the key question. Would he feel better knowing that he prevented someone else from benefiting?<p>When we give gifts, we hope the recipient will use it in the way we would have. Use the tool to create awesome ovals. Drive your family around in the car. It&#x27;s hard when the recipient instead uses it &quot;the wrong way.&quot; SEO the tool. Flip the car. But that&#x27;s always a risk when truly giving a gift with no strings attached.
评论 #39414672 未加载
aaron695over 1 year ago
Closed source would fix this.<p>GPL would not (CC licenses is not appropriate to code)<p>Please ~ MIT or Close Source projects. <i>Don&#x27;t</i> GPL, GPL is for assholes and the antithesis of free code.<p>They could try creating a strong brand and using copyright and trademarks.<p>But the author says the post was just a needed rant - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39414296">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39414296</a>
shipscodeover 1 year ago
Better than the GPL poison pill
hiAndrewQuinnover 1 year ago
I basically have two modes for releasing code: All rights reserved, or public domain &#x2F; CC0. My reasons are pragmatic. The latter improves the former by letting future me shamelessly plagiarize past me with zero responsibilities to point it out to anyone.