3 ms·
> they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back But this is simply not true. MIT requires keeping the copyright notice intact, which woul
by LadyCailin 3y ago
> they don't credit me as the author or provide any sort of link back
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.
- jonathankoren 3y agoAgreed. His problem isn't the license. His problem is thinking a text file is going to stop a bad actor.
- jdiff 3y agoThe text file isn't to stop the bad actor, it's to let you send DMCA requests to their host/search engines.
- jonathankoren 3y agoBut he's not doing that. He's changing his text file.
- jdiff 3y agoHe is doing that. Or to be pedantic, he has, and would if he relicensed. > It's pretty easy to figure out someone's hosting service and put in a DMCA request. I've had to do it in the past for some stolen data that was posted online, and it's fast and effective. I'd of course try to contact them first as well, but when that failed I'd have quick recourse. The same question was posed in the comments on his article.
- csande17 3y agoIncluding a comment in the JavaScript file is broadly considered good enough to satisfy this requirement of the MIT license, even though most people won't ever see it. GPLv3, on the other hand, is much more explicit about saying that the copyright notice must appear in the actual user interface of the application.
- billti 3y agoHe covers this in a couple places in the post. There is no requirement under MIT to redistribute the source for any changes you make or anything you build with it. If they redistribute the source then yes, but that’s not the concern in the post.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]