5 ms·

How do you avoid malicious users publishing your content public? Or is it just not an issue yet?

cercatrova 6y ago
I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.
- jraph 6y ago
  Remaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way). So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.
  - DelightOne 6y ago
    How to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?
- squidfunk 6y ago
  It's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    > different licensing would make it more complicated for companies True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".
    - OJFord 6y ago
      No company (that cares about licences in the first place(!)) is going to touch 'MIT, but with some words removed'.
squidfunk 6y ago
This is indeed a problem. However, given that you need to pay for a subscription to get access, I consider the risk rather low. The Insiders code is released under the same license (MIT), as I didn't want to make things complicated, so I couldn't even enforce someone publishing it. I have a fair-use policy [1] that (up to now) all users respect. Yes, the model is far from being perfect, but it allows me to pay at least some of my bills. I'm always curious to learn how to improve it! [1]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#terms https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#terms

I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.

jraph 6y ago
Remaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way). So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.
- DelightOne 6y ago
  How to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?
squidfunk 6y ago
It's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.
- bonestamp2 6y ago
  > different licensing would make it more complicated for companies True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".
  - OJFord 6y ago
    No company (that cares about licences in the first place(!)) is going to touch 'MIT, but with some words removed'.

squidfunk 6y ago

This is indeed a problem. However, given that you need to pay for a subscription to get access, I consider the risk rather low. The Insiders code is released under the same license (MIT), as I didn't want to make things complicated, so I couldn't even enforce someone publishing it. I have a fair-use policy [1] that (up to now) all users respect. Yes, the model is far from being perfect, but it allows me to pay at least some of my bills. I'm always curious to learn how to improve it! [1]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#terms https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#terms