No, but I can be miffed if I offer people a free lunch and they turn around and sell the free lunch I paid to make and keep all the money.
It seems odd to me to have the solution completely within my power to fix, but not fix it, and complain about the situation.
In my view, the license is specifically made to allow reselling. That’s why I pick MIT, Apache, and BSD. If I don’t want people to resell then I pick GPL or some other license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
(And GNU even encourages it.)
See also about selling exceptions to GPL, like Qt does :
What I meant is that releasing software under a license that doesn’t reflect what I want and the complaining will just lead to frustration.
This seems like a simple problem to solve, just release under whatever license I want. This faker.js project is released under MIT. The author can continue development under some non-OSS license and I think that will make him happier because rich people would stop using it. But I don’t think it will make him the income he wants.
I think the problem is that non-OSS licenses will result in people just not using the project, not that rich people will start shelling out.
As a small business, I would avoid these licenses as well because having multiple licenses kick in at different levels will be confusing and expensive. I’d rather use OSS or just buy commercial products.
> As a small business, I would avoid these licenses as well because having multiple licenses kick in at different levels will be confusing and expensive. I’d rather use OSS or just buy commercial products.
You could just license it from the start and not have to worry about the license kicking in, though.
It seems like his current take is just seeking patronage to keep working on an MIT project.
I think this happens quite a bit, but not normally this way. There are lots of companies who employ people with the sole purpose of writing for MIT/Apache/BSD projects. So I guess that’s a form of patronage.
I hope this guy gets what he likes. I’ve never heard of this project, but it has at least 26k people who liked it enough to star it on GitHub. Not sure how that will ever equate to 100k+/year.
You can’t offer people a free lunch and then claim they are steeling if they don’t voluntarily tip you the full cost of a lunch.
Open source software is provided under a license and if Apple or Amazon or whoever do not violate that license they are not steeling. If you didn’t want them to use the software under the license you provided the software under chose a different license.
The point of open source is exactly to provide software under open source terms. If you want to add additional terms like “unless you make money then I want to get paid”, then just do that! It’s your software and your license! But you cannot have Heisenbergs open source software which is open source only until someone picks it up and makes money at which point it retroactively becomes proprietary in order to force that moneystream past you.