Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake

Re:Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a m... by lbhdc on Sunday August 13, 2023 @12:33PM (#37111470)

> I want you to use my code in your proprietary software.

> Against my well meaning intentions however, websites re-hosting my tools have been popping up like weeds... Most irksome of all, in a fair number of cases they sit centrally on pages covered in ads and SEO keywords. My tools are being associated with a genuinely bad user experience.

This feels like a disconnect between these two. The author wants people to make money off of their work, but is upset when they do it in a less than desirable way.

It seems like a lot of people make this mistake. They publish things of value with very permissive licenses, then are upset when others (out) monetize them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a m... by donatj on Sunday August 13, 2023 @12:46PM (#37111591)

The point I was trying to make was that I chose the wrong license for my tools, not my libraries.

MIT suits my libraries well and your first quote is about them. I know for a fact people are making a lot of money using them and that is amazing.

I didn't really intend or foresee people reusing my tools though. I didn't put enough thought into my choice of license on when I published them. The crux of my post is that it's something of a personal failing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a m... by beardyw on Sunday August 13, 2023 @02:10PM (#37112464)

The author is sharing his experience as a warning to others, not asking for sympathy. We should thank him.

[ Parent | on HN ]