Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LadyCailin 858 days 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.
3 comments
billti 858 days ago
He 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.

link
csande17 858 days ago
Including 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.

link
jonathankoren 858 days ago
Agreed. His problem isn't the license. His problem is thinking a text file is going to stop a bad actor.
link
jdiff 858 days ago
The text file isn't to stop the bad actor, it's to let you send DMCA requests to their host/search engines.
link
jonathankoren 858 days ago
But he's not doing that. He's changing his text file.
link
jdiff 858 days ago
He 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.

link