new | ask | show | jobs
rhodey 2 days ago  [ - ]

What the license allows for is very clear

I publish many things without dual licensing and yet your kind will not be satisfied

craftkiller 2 days ago  [ - ]

This isn't about demanding you let companies use your code. This is about what you are calling that license. It is not the MIT license and it is wrong to lie to people by calling it the MIT license. You should give it a name like "The bizcards license" or whatever.

IANAL but you also might want to consult a lawyer since your franken-license contradicts itself. It might be hard to challenge a company in court when they steal your code.

cAtte_ 2 days ago  [ - ]

if it forbids commercial use, it's not MIT. like at all

rhodey 2 days ago  [ - ]

This is simple I wrote a license The license says there are two licenses If you are non-commercial you get MIT If you are commercial you email for terms

There is nowhere a claim that this is MIT

ahazred8ta 2 days ago  [ - ]

Your lawyer will explain to you that what you wanted, and what your license terms actually mean, are two different things. There are noncommercial users who have downloaded your software and are using it under the terms of the MIT license. You already gave them permission. Now, they can give copies to commercial users, who can use it under the terms of the MIT license. Your lawyer will explain this to you.

rhodey 2 days ago  [ - ]

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software

soulofmischief 2 days ago  [ - ]

You can just change the license, that's what MIT allows for. You are allowed to do whatever you want:

  MIT License

  Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]

  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
  of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), **to deal
  in the Software without restriction**, including **without limitation** the rights
  to use, copy, *modify*, merge, publish, distribute, *sublicense*, and/or sell
  copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
  furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
  copies or substantial portions of the Software.

  THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
  IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
  FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
  AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
  LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
  OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
  SOFTWARE.
You have to keep the copyright notice and notice of existing permissions, but that is not the same thing as a license. And you are allowed to sublicense into a more restrictive license (such as proprietary/closed source). Just not the other way around, which is what the inclusion of the existing notice helps to enforce.
Retr0id 2 days ago  [ - ]

You can create any custom license terms you like, as you have done, but if you refer to it as the "MIT License" (which you do, explicitly) without the source being available under the MIT license, you invite only confusion.

rhodey 2 days ago  [ - ]

If I published using any non-commercial license whatsoever there would be disagreements so here we are all the same

yreg 2 days ago  [ - ]

Yeah, why do anything right, people will complain all the same. /s

xorcist 2 days ago  [ - ]

So being non-commercial I can just fork and redistribute the software under MIT license? Strange, but acceptable.