- cross-posted to:
- anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
- cross-posted to:
- anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
You must log in or register to comment.
Apple deployed a library I wrote to every mac on the world, and additionally bundles it with Xcode.
Apple users reported some bugs, that‘s how I found out.
I never heard a word from them. No patches, no bug reports, nothing, they didn’t even bother to refresh the bundled version.
I think in the meantime they removed it from macOS but still bundle it with Xcode.
I mean, I didn’t any money, but some appreciation would’ve been nice, and a version refresh…
If you are curious: it is this library: https://github.com/ckruse/CFPropertyList
Edit: appreciation as in: a mail with a notice that they did so.
MIT License
Hopefully, you learned your lesson.
Yeah, well. What should I say. I wanted to use it in a commercial project, too :)
You can use your library for commercial projects that you have. Just have dual license that requires payment for commercial use or something similar. You don’t have to pay yourself
To be honest, I wasn’t aware of this option when I wrote this library. Nowadays I would chose this path.
I think that’s why Github suggests MIT as default. Unaware people will just put that. Most open source people just code things they want without thinking much on other aspects. We really need some sort of enforcement to stop companies banking on voluntary work done for the community.
I mean isn’t it your library? You can make any exceptions you want lol
Here’s the core issue. The developer didn’t know his rights, and made a mistake. I’m not criticizing, people make a career dealing with crap like this. But if you want to make a business out of something, it’s worth it to do some research or talk to a lawyer. I believe the MIT license has its place but, from what the OP said, this isn’t it.
I did not want to make a business out of this library. I don’t want money for it.
All I would’ve wanted is that the people at Apple would’ve given me a heads up beforehand, so I would’ve been prepared for it and not caught on surprise. And a that they do a version upgrade when I release a new bugfix release.
This is not a license issue. I was well aware of the consequences when I chose the MIT license. This is not about money.
You specifically said you chose the MIT license because you wanted to use it in commercial projects. That’s business, no matter how small. As the owner of the property, you could have used any and all licenses available to you. Also, if you wanted to require users of your code to attribute or notify you, you could have. If you want to be disappointed in their behavior that’s perfectly fine, too. Corporations usually disappoint if you have any altruistic expectations of them.
Ah, that‘s the angle you’re coming from.
In this regard you are right. I could’ve chosen AGPL and use it in my commercial project nonetheless. I wasn’t aware of that at the time, and that was a mistake.
That said, I don’t expect all users to notify me. But if a company like Apple, with millions of users, exposes me to even a fraction of its users - then yes. I expect a mail beforehand. I did not sign up for this.
But I agree with your last part again ;)
Agreed. Free licenses should NEVER be applied to Apple-specific tools. They don’t want to help the FOSS community, so we shouldn’t help them back. Make them pay for it, or make them make their own version.
the MIT license has its place
Garbage, that’s its pace.
A cogent argument. I’m convinced!
Praised be the copyleft!
Really funny/interesting that they use an external library to handle a format that they created!
Yeah, I was surprised, too. I guess they implemented stuff using Ruby and didn’t bother to write an in-house implementation. 🤷♂️
It’s probably a single dev that made the decision, then moves onto something else. They (probably?) don’t have the ability to just raise a recurring PO etc to easily pay you and don’t care enough to worth through the paperwork.
If you had a paid licencing model they may have done it, or just found another lib/ wrote their own.
Make your MIT-licensed library big enough that the corpos use it, then switch it to AGPL just before you add a really important and tricky feature they’ve been waiting for.
The rich text editor my work uses in its product dud this 🤣
While they are looking to jump to something else they will get at least 1 or 2vyears worth of fees out of them
Ckeditor lol?
Bingo
I really wish we could have a license like if your revenue is 5mil + you have to kick in something to the devs
That is essentially what the “Post-Open Source” idea is trying to do.
5milkick license
Makes 10 thousand fists in the air seem like nothing.
I wonder why I haven’t seen a standard open-source license for this.
Comapnies 🥺
Comapny, bro
lol Comapenis
AGPL RULEZ
So how difficult would it be to update the library to include a blacklist to those big corpos taking advantage of your code?
Easily done with licences. Corpo is scared of licensing.
I really like the GPL license for that reason. Take it, use it, be merry. But don’t you dare use it in a closed source project, and you have to give me credit
Credit and release any changes you made to it. No freeloading.
Just use a GPL license instead. It allows use with credit, but requires that usage also be released for free. Meaning that it can’t be used by corpos and their closed-source projects.
