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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
