3 ms·
I don't see it. If I were to include your MIT-licensed code in my GPL library, then I'd be attaching extra licensing requirements to the entire work while sati
by klyrs 4y ago
I don't see it. If I were to include your MIT-licensed code in my GPL library, then I'd be attaching extra licensing requirements to the entire work while satisfying the requirements of your license. Is that amoral? If not, can you elaborate on the difference?
Specifically, the passage I quoted is not only granting you as a content creator the right to disinclude your works from the compilation, but also requiring that users of the compilation respect your wishes in that regard. As I see it, they're going above and beyond the letter of your license, and granting you the ability to revoke a grant that is typically seen as durable. Why does that not satisfy your moral issue?
- snvzz 4y ago>If I were to include your MIT-licensed code in my GPL library I'd be alright with that. I picked that license with full knowledge of what it implies. >but also requiring that users of the compilation respect your wishes in that regard The problem is with attaching extra terms of use to my (unmodified, not linked to anything else, not relicensed) code, just to access it there, whereas my code can already be accessed elsewhere w/o agreeing to such terms of use. Yes, they can add whatever they want, but it just doesn't sit right with me, and I'm not sure it's helping the archive either (which saddens me more than the former); For all this code it has that can also be found elsewhere, there's a barrier to access (i.e. forced to read legalese and agree). Completely unnecessary, as the licenses each individual project has already grants the necessary rights, for both the end user and the archive.