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

[–] cjk@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To be honest, I wasn’t aware of this option when I wrote this library. Nowadays I would chose this path.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean isn't it your library? You can make any exceptions you want lol

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] cjk@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cjk@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 ;)

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

You're a good person.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the MIT license has its place

Garbage, that’s its pace.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A cogent argument. I'm convinced!

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

Praised be the copyleft!