[tomcam]

tldr; OP felt that releasing libraries under MIT License benefited the community, but releasing apps was a mistake because other sites bested them in the SEO game. That probably caused a Bing blackout, and certainly meant losing in SEO to crapware-filled sites.

I'm thinking the optimal course would be a GPL release + trademarking the software name so that there could be more control about attribution and what sites get to use the name?

[justinjlynn]

Yes. The (A)GPL is there for a good reason (in part, this one - ensuring one's work and other's work on it remains free and open source and commercial freeloaders can't get a free ride), and trademark law ensures you retain control of your software's brand. MIT and BSD... well, look where they come from - they're not designed with those purposes in mind. If you care about an aspect of a licensing solution, use a license designed and fit for purpose - just as you'd use a library designed and fit for purpose.

[p_l]

AGPL does not stop that kind of use at all, though. As long as you stick to making the application have a quine functionality on all channels, it doesn't matter if the link is 0.01% of text on page compared to SEO spam.

[justinjlynn]

The statement "(A)GPL" probably should've been written "GPL/AGPL"... apologies for the miscommunication.

[tomcam]

But owning the trademark gives you some control over how the mark is used.