3 ms·

Wow. I think I've used your circle generator on that other site without realizing it. That sucks. I've bookmarked yours now!

donatj 4y ago
A bunch of sites popped up hosting it loaded with SEO garbage and ads. I’d licensed it MIT so while they certainly can, it sure doesn’t feel nice.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  Same thing happened with StackExchange and Wikipedia, but they appear to have fixed it.
- esperent 4y ago
  I've writing and freely shared a lot of OSS code and I plan to continue doing that. All MIT licensed. But I keep thinking that this is a limitation of MIT. It's written with the purest of good intentions but without any way to prevent bad actors from exploiting that. I wonder if there's a better kind of license that provides a close level of freedom but would prevent some of the most obvious exploitations (e.g. packaging and selling the code, or reposting on a site with advertising)? There's copyleft licensing like LGPL but perhaps that goes too far in the other direction and besides, it seems to be very unpopular amongst web developers so I'm afraid if I release any LGPL code it won't get used much or attract contributors. Is there a happy medium between these?
  - bo1024 4y ago
    One of the Creative Commons licenses like cc-by?
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of LGPL is that it wouldn't prevent people from doing what they're doing in this scenario.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    Every open source license will by definition allow packaging and selling the code or reposting it on a site with advertising, permitting to do that is one of the key freedoms; if you're forbidden to use the code for commercial purposes, then that's not an open source license. See https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd MIT will allow that, Apache/BSD/Mozilla licenses will allow that, GPL and LGPL will allow that, Creative commons CC-BY and CC-BY-SA will allow that - the only difference is extra conditions e.g. GPL will require the seller/redistributor of the code to keep the same license, CC-BY will require leaving attribution to the author, etc, but all of them will allow someone else to redistribute the code for commercial purposes.

donatj 4y ago

A bunch of sites popped up hosting it loaded with SEO garbage and ads. I’d licensed it MIT so while they certainly can, it sure doesn’t feel nice.

tinus_hn 4y ago
Same thing happened with StackExchange and Wikipedia, but they appear to have fixed it.
esperent 4y ago
I've writing and freely shared a lot of OSS code and I plan to continue doing that. All MIT licensed. But I keep thinking that this is a limitation of MIT. It's written with the purest of good intentions but without any way to prevent bad actors from exploiting that. I wonder if there's a better kind of license that provides a close level of freedom but would prevent some of the most obvious exploitations (e.g. packaging and selling the code, or reposting on a site with advertising)? There's copyleft licensing like LGPL but perhaps that goes too far in the other direction and besides, it seems to be very unpopular amongst web developers so I'm afraid if I release any LGPL code it won't get used much or attract contributors. Is there a happy medium between these?
- bo1024 4y ago
  One of the Creative Commons licenses like cc-by?
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of LGPL is that it wouldn't prevent people from doing what they're doing in this scenario.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Every open source license will by definition allow packaging and selling the code or reposting it on a site with advertising, permitting to do that is one of the key freedoms; if you're forbidden to use the code for commercial purposes, then that's not an open source license. See https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd MIT will allow that, Apache/BSD/Mozilla licenses will allow that, GPL and LGPL will allow that, Creative commons CC-BY and CC-BY-SA will allow that - the only difference is extra conditions e.g. GPL will require the seller/redistributor of the code to keep the same license, CC-BY will require leaving attribution to the author, etc, but all of them will allow someone else to redistribute the code for commercial purposes.