3 ms·

> It’s entirely acceptable for someone to use your MIT-licensed projects to make money without even acknowledging your name. Well, actually... > The above cop

by joshka 2y ago

> It’s entirely acceptable for someone to use your MIT-licensed projects to make money without even acknowledging your name. Well, actually... > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. -- https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

bruce511 2y ago
Sure, that's in the copyright notice, maybe in the docs no-one reads. But from a marketing and sales point of view, it's nowhere. For example, I can start marketing and selling a new image editor (blimp), and on my web page, in videos, Facebook yo face, I need make no mention that it's based on Gimp. And that is -explicitly- allowed by Open Source licenses. Which is part of the Ooen Source deal - others can build on what you made, take credit for it, profit from it. That is not a bug, it's a feature which was explicitly allowed for.
- thayne 2y ago
  > I need make no mention that it's based on Gimp. You would however, need to make the source code available under the GPL license, since GIMP is licensed with GPL.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Of course. But my point is that that a) does not matter to 99% of the people who bought Blimb and b) its not a factor in the marketing and sales part.
- joshka 2y ago
  > That is not a bug, it's a feature which was explicitly allowed for. I agree entirely :) It's why I prefer to use the MIT / Apache Dual license (and generally to avoid the GPL in certain contexts). Apache's condition is more explicit and nicer from the attribution perspective (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. I've actively said to people as a result of looking at my own Apache/MIT licensed software (as well as others) to go fork themselves. You don't need my permission to do so as by choosing that license I already gave you the permission.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Any time I bring this up to people it's immediately shot down with "but it goes against the spirit of the license, and/or the developer's wishes, or is somehow otherwise unethical." And at that point you basically can't disagree without looking like a ghoul.
xuanwo 2y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. MIT is not a good example to convey my opinion. I will add an update at the end of the post.

by joshka 2y ago

bruce511 2y ago

Sure, that's in the copyright notice, maybe in the docs no-one reads. But from a marketing and sales point of view, it's nowhere. For example, I can start marketing and selling a new image editor (blimp), and on my web page, in videos, Facebook yo face, I need make no mention that it's based on Gimp. And that is -explicitly- allowed by Open Source licenses. Which is part of the Ooen Source deal - others can build on what you made, take credit for it, profit from it. That is not a bug, it's a feature which was explicitly allowed for.

thayne 2y ago
> I need make no mention that it's based on Gimp. You would however, need to make the source code available under the GPL license, since GIMP is licensed with GPL.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Of course. But my point is that that a) does not matter to 99% of the people who bought Blimb and b) its not a factor in the marketing and sales part.
joshka 2y ago
> That is not a bug, it's a feature which was explicitly allowed for. I agree entirely :) It's why I prefer to use the MIT / Apache Dual license (and generally to avoid the GPL in certain contexts). Apache's condition is more explicit and nicer from the attribution perspective (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. I've actively said to people as a result of looking at my own Apache/MIT licensed software (as well as others) to go fork themselves. You don't need my permission to do so as by choosing that license I already gave you the permission.
ranger_danger 2y ago
Any time I bring this up to people it's immediately shot down with "but it goes against the spirit of the license, and/or the developer's wishes, or is somehow otherwise unethical." And at that point you basically can't disagree without looking like a ghoul.

xuanwo 2y ago

Thank you for pointing that out. MIT is not a good example to convey my opinion. I will add an update at the end of the post.