4 ms·

Those projects are in the public domain. If there are purposes that you don't want your project to be used for then forbid it in the license. When you put your

by Cakez0r 12y ago

Those projects are in the public domain. If there are purposes that you don't want your project to be used for then forbid it in the license. When you put your contact information in the public domain and then complain about being notified when somebody has given you money, I feel like you're complaining just for the sake of complaining. Set up filter rules or don't put your contact information on the internet. If I was denied the chance to receive a donation for a contribution I made to an open source project essentially because the "project owner" doesn't agree then I'd be very annoyed.

jordanpg 12y ago
> then forbid it in the license Isn't this really all there is to say on this subject?
- eropple 12y ago
  No, it's not. The software itself has nothing to do with taking donations on its behalf.
  - chillingeffect 12y ago
    not a lawyer, but one quick way to gain some protection for these developers would be to treat their online archives at github as IP, use it in some minimal commerce activity and copyright the name of the product. At that point, it would be less legally defensible for tip4commit to solicit donations for them.
- mpatch 12y ago
  No. It's irrelevant and wrong. The third party site raising money in these projects' names is not using code from the projects to do so, it is only using the name. They are not bound by any license offered by the projects. Maybe the projects' authors can pursue some kind of action for that alone, but it has nothing to do with the terms under which the project is licensed.
  - jordanpg 12y ago
    Maybe licenses could be modified to cover the case of using the name? No idea what the legalities of this situation are, but if this problem is rampant, it seems at least plausible that the right legalese could help stem the tide.
    - mpatch 12y ago
      No, they can't. Licenses are based on copyright law. The copyright holder may set terms under which the content they hold a copyright on may be copied and distributed. This is what a license is all about. Copyright does not apply to names of projects, titles of books, etc. Only to the content itself. The use of the name, by itself, is not and cannot be protected by a license. This is the domain of trademarks, which few of these projects would have, because trademarks must be registered and paid for. But that's probably not the issue here. The real issue is that the site seems to imply a business relationship with various projects and contributors that does not actually exist. Likely, this is enough to bring action if it comes to that. Also, to address a point of confusion in this discussion: The no-promotion provisions in the BSD license and similar only applies to derivative software, which would be use under the license. The author can place restrictions on promotion of derivative works only because the licensee is actually copying and distributing the code under license and the license is the only thing that would give him the right to do so.
eropple 12y ago
> Those projects are in the public domain. This is completely wrong. > If there are purposes that you don't want your project to be used for then forbid it in the license. This is completely inapplicable. > If I was denied the chance to receive a donation for a contribution I made to an open source project essentially because the "project owner" doesn't agree then I'd be very annoyed. Start your own project.
- Cakez0r 12y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to post this enlightening rebuttal.
  - shangxiao 12y ago
    They are all valid points, if you don't like it, argue against it, don't get snarky. Edit: Yes thanks for that downvote, encouraging people to have an intelligent conversation through constructive arguments rather than making pointless remarks seems to be frowned upon by some people
    - davesque 12y ago
      The person who replied to him basically just said, "I disagree." They didn't provide any reasons for this. They were also being rude. I think his response was appropriate.
      - eropple 12y ago
        When you're factually wrong, there's not much to say other than "you're wrong and this is why." When you get saucy about being wrong...
        davesque 12y ago
        But you didn't provide the "why" part. And he wasn't being saucy at first. He only did that after you didn't say why you disagreed.
davesque 12y ago
Shouldn't down votes be reserved for people who are being inflammatory or trolling? This guy just expressed his opinion. Just because you don't agree with him, does that mean you need to down-vote him? Doing this only encourages people to have the same viewpoint.

by Cakez0r 12y ago

jordanpg 12y ago

> then forbid it in the license Isn't this really all there is to say on this subject?

eropple 12y ago
No, it's not. The software itself has nothing to do with taking donations on its behalf.
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  not a lawyer, but one quick way to gain some protection for these developers would be to treat their online archives at github as IP, use it in some minimal commerce activity and copyright the name of the product. At that point, it would be less legally defensible for tip4commit to solicit donations for them.
mpatch 12y ago
No. It's irrelevant and wrong. The third party site raising money in these projects' names is not using code from the projects to do so, it is only using the name. They are not bound by any license offered by the projects. Maybe the projects' authors can pursue some kind of action for that alone, but it has nothing to do with the terms under which the project is licensed.
- jordanpg 12y ago
  Maybe licenses could be modified to cover the case of using the name? No idea what the legalities of this situation are, but if this problem is rampant, it seems at least plausible that the right legalese could help stem the tide.
  - mpatch 12y ago
    No, they can't. Licenses are based on copyright law. The copyright holder may set terms under which the content they hold a copyright on may be copied and distributed. This is what a license is all about. Copyright does not apply to names of projects, titles of books, etc. Only to the content itself. The use of the name, by itself, is not and cannot be protected by a license. This is the domain of trademarks, which few of these projects would have, because trademarks must be registered and paid for. But that's probably not the issue here. The real issue is that the site seems to imply a business relationship with various projects and contributors that does not actually exist. Likely, this is enough to bring action if it comes to that. Also, to address a point of confusion in this discussion: The no-promotion provisions in the BSD license and similar only applies to derivative software, which would be use under the license. The author can place restrictions on promotion of derivative works only because the licensee is actually copying and distributing the code under license and the license is the only thing that would give him the right to do so.

eropple 12y ago

> Those projects are in the public domain. This is completely wrong. > If there are purposes that you don't want your project to be used for then forbid it in the license. This is completely inapplicable. > If I was denied the chance to receive a donation for a contribution I made to an open source project essentially because the "project owner" doesn't agree then I'd be very annoyed. Start your own project.

Cakez0r 12y ago
Thank you for taking the time to post this enlightening rebuttal.
- shangxiao 12y ago
  They are all valid points, if you don't like it, argue against it, don't get snarky. Edit: Yes thanks for that downvote, encouraging people to have an intelligent conversation through constructive arguments rather than making pointless remarks seems to be frowned upon by some people
  - davesque 12y ago
    The person who replied to him basically just said, "I disagree." They didn't provide any reasons for this. They were also being rude. I think his response was appropriate.
    - eropple 12y ago
      When you're factually wrong, there's not much to say other than "you're wrong and this is why." When you get saucy about being wrong...
      - davesque 12y ago
        But you didn't provide the "why" part. And he wasn't being saucy at first. He only did that after you didn't say why you disagreed.

davesque 12y ago

Shouldn't down votes be reserved for people who are being inflammatory or trolling? This guy just expressed his opinion. Just because you don't agree with him, does that mean you need to down-vote him? Doing this only encourages people to have the same viewpoint.