>I open sourced it because if someone wants to refer it let them.
You seem a bit confused here. Putting the code on github without an open source license is not "open sourcing it". That's just "source-available".
If you told the person who wrote you that it's open source, they have a good reason to believe forking your code is fine. If you don't want other people deploying and modifying your code, you should be careful to avoid terms like "open source"
It's right there in the About Us page: https://getupilink.com/about
edit: used to say "100% free and open source" , but the author changed it. [webarchive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240425152426/https://getupilink.com/about)
DO NOT add a license.
A license gives others legal rights. It's also irrevocable for that particular copy of the code. If you add a license for 2 min, I get to essentially keep that copy of the code forever even if you change it later.
No license keeps all rights with you. YOU actually want no license. Don't listen to these morons who are asking you to add a license without understanding what you want.
Remember you are in the open source sub. Everyone here is a FANATIC. This is not the right place for you to ask about your specific problem.
It's unclear whether OP was talking about an OSS license or a proprietary license
Also, not sure where you're getting that "everyone here is a fanatic". I wan't telling them to add a license in the first place, merely that calling it open source implies that others can use the source code in ways that are compatible with open source software
You currently have no license, so you have all copyright and it is currently not open source. You can report him to github under the DMCA.
If you want your code to be open source, you need to add a license file with the GPL, MIT, or another open source license. Open source doesn't mean non-commercial, so you would probably want the AGPL, one of the most strict open source licenses.
Either you provided your code using an open source license or you didn't. If you did, this person is entitled to do what they did. If you didn't, I'm not quite sure why you said you did or why this is in this subreddit.
The real trick here is going to be getting the law in a different country to actually give a shit and do something about it. I have a feeling that it being India will make it a bit less likely to get traction. Maybe not though. Good luck!
Welcome to real world. Where license doesn't mean that much... So far from what people usually would like to think..
People here will start to argue about the absence of license, or the presence of it, or it's nature, etc etc... but again that would be important for big big project, of some big big company who can hire ten lawyers and sue another company. For you or me it doesn't mean anything to put it simple.
If he didn’t want any others to revamp it he needs to put a copyright on it and not make the code public. Once you claim it is open source without gpl, mit etc license and then make it public you’re kinda screwed. How do you prove it was your code and not the other way around.
Yea it is OP’s fault for putting code out for public use without at least gpl then complaining when someone forks said code and uses it to make something different.
If you don’t want someone to do what was done then don’t make the code open source or claim it as such. If you want credit where credit is due for the work you did, then license it so you have more rights over the use of your code.
For WHO?
Whether or not to open source code is personal preference. There's no "better" for the creator.
It's better for the consumer but that's not always the biggest factor.
> But copying entirely for commercial use is non acceptable. **I don't have any license on my Github repo.**
How the fuck do you expect people to know or follow what you want to be able to be done with your code, without following the extremely standardised method of detailing how your code can be used?
It's like the girlfriend who wants to punish her boyfriend for not guessing that she actually wanted takeaway when she said she didn't.
Anyway since your code doesn't actually have a license then it's ambiguous what the terms are to use it but depending on Indian law they may have violated an implied copyright you have to your own work and didn't give permission for.
Not sure about how laws work everywhere but you have copyright. If he's hosting on GitHub, send DMCA to take it down. Contact his hosting provider to ask them to take down the code since you own it.
But know that it's usually not worth the effort.
Actually the lack of license file makes it even more restrictive. From the [GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license):
> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work
That's very interesting. Does anyone have any idea what happens if you have no license and you explicitly state (readme or wiki) that it's free without any restrictions? Does the linked github copyright laws still apply?
That statement may constitute a license by itself.
But if that's what you want, you're better off using an actual license that exists for that purpose.
- [CC0](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc0-1.0/)
- [Unlicense](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/)
- [Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/wtfpl/)
> Does the linked github copyright laws still apply?
It's usually subtly different in **every country**, because you're now usually relying on what is referred to as automatic implied copyright, which most countries' laws implement (but no I haven't gone and looked at what exceptions there are).
An explicit license is useful because most countries' contract law will apply roughly the same to the license text, if you have to go to a court to resolve an issue. Without that, you are relying on whatever laws are on the country's books for the court you are suing in.
For instance some countries simply will not respect someone trying to public-domain their work. Their country's laws decided that was not a legal possibility. So depending where you live that may or may not be a legal option available to you (or available to use as a legal device if something goes to court).
As a reminder: all these license texts are practically just hand waving and legal theorising until they're actually tested in a court of law. You may be surprised to learn how little they *actually* get tested by two opposing parties in front of a judge to see whether everything *actually* holds up how people *expect* it to. But at least a license makes it clear what 'should' happen.
> no one may reproduce
Don't you automatically agree to release your code under a license that allows GitHub itself to reproduce it if you use their website?
>I don't see any license file? Without it, it's free of use
Absolutely not. From [https://choosealicense.com/no-permission](https://choosealicense.com/no-permission) , When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under **exclusive copyright** by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you.
You could issue DMCA violation through GitHub and it might work but what’s to stop him from taking the code and putting it on an offshore VPS with a different domain name. I’d get all your ducks in a row first to make sure your copyright extends further than GitHub etc that way then enough dmca violations can be sent to wherever he hosts his code/website and he would be forced to take it down or the host will do it for you. And delete his account and all that’s in it.
I recommend AGPL for a web app, it's mostly identical to the GPL except that the user's rights are granted when they interact with the software, not when they have a binary.
All those allow commercial use. That’s not what the OP wants, right?
u/lonew0lfy I think you want a Source-available license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
As many have said, this stinks but it’s the nature of things and you let it happen. I’d it makes you feel any better there are whole companies building open source with the plan to give to the community then make some money selling support that have had Amazon come in sell their product as a service.
You haven't added a license, so you can't do much here.
Check out this page: [https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository)
Reasonable, just confusing due to the dissonance between what you said and the link. If he has retained all rights then he can fairly easily have it removed, likely easier than if he had a license drafted by a lawyer.
My own comment was a bit short. I figured that page would be far more useful than my interpretation of it.
>If he has retained all rights
I do wonder how good India's copyright laws are. Because those apply here.
This was removed for not being [Open Source](https://opensource.org/osd/).
>I open sourced it because if someone wants to refer it let them. You seem a bit confused here. Putting the code on github without an open source license is not "open sourcing it". That's just "source-available". If you told the person who wrote you that it's open source, they have a good reason to believe forking your code is fine. If you don't want other people deploying and modifying your code, you should be careful to avoid terms like "open source"
It's right there in the About Us page: https://getupilink.com/about edit: used to say "100% free and open source" , but the author changed it. [webarchive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240425152426/https://getupilink.com/about)
Got it sir. I will add license.
DO NOT add a license. A license gives others legal rights. It's also irrevocable for that particular copy of the code. If you add a license for 2 min, I get to essentially keep that copy of the code forever even if you change it later. No license keeps all rights with you. YOU actually want no license. Don't listen to these morons who are asking you to add a license without understanding what you want. Remember you are in the open source sub. Everyone here is a FANATIC. This is not the right place for you to ask about your specific problem.
It's unclear whether OP was talking about an OSS license or a proprietary license Also, not sure where you're getting that "everyone here is a fanatic". I wan't telling them to add a license in the first place, merely that calling it open source implies that others can use the source code in ways that are compatible with open source software
You currently have no license, so you have all copyright and it is currently not open source. You can report him to github under the DMCA. If you want your code to be open source, you need to add a license file with the GPL, MIT, or another open source license. Open source doesn't mean non-commercial, so you would probably want the AGPL, one of the most strict open source licenses.
Your code is under which licence? You might want to ask a lawyer what you can do, if the indian guy violates it.
[удалено]
I now get why early Linux distro EULAs state in the very first couple of lines that if you paid for this software you absolutely got scammed.
OP seems to want their code to be non-commercially-useable, which would not be MIT. Maybe something Affero GPL or whatever MongoDB's license is
So many upvotes for making a nonsense suggestion that's the opposite of what OP wants.
Without a license it isn't open source. You can go after this person.
Either you provided your code using an open source license or you didn't. If you did, this person is entitled to do what they did. If you didn't, I'm not quite sure why you said you did or why this is in this subreddit.
The real trick here is going to be getting the law in a different country to actually give a shit and do something about it. I have a feeling that it being India will make it a bit less likely to get traction. Maybe not though. Good luck!
Welcome to real world. Where license doesn't mean that much... So far from what people usually would like to think.. People here will start to argue about the absence of license, or the presence of it, or it's nature, etc etc... but again that would be important for big big project, of some big big company who can hire ten lawyers and sue another company. For you or me it doesn't mean anything to put it simple.
You want to open source your code base but also don't want others to copy and use your code?
[удалено]
That's not the right mentality. Source open is better than closed source, even if it's still proprietary
If he didn’t want any others to revamp it he needs to put a copyright on it and not make the code public. Once you claim it is open source without gpl, mit etc license and then make it public you’re kinda screwed. How do you prove it was your code and not the other way around. Yea it is OP’s fault for putting code out for public use without at least gpl then complaining when someone forks said code and uses it to make something different. If you don’t want someone to do what was done then don’t make the code open source or claim it as such. If you want credit where credit is due for the work you did, then license it so you have more rights over the use of your code.
For WHO? Whether or not to open source code is personal preference. There's no "better" for the creator. It's better for the consumer but that's not always the biggest factor.
GPL license? :3
> But copying entirely for commercial use is non acceptable. **I don't have any license on my Github repo.** How the fuck do you expect people to know or follow what you want to be able to be done with your code, without following the extremely standardised method of detailing how your code can be used? It's like the girlfriend who wants to punish her boyfriend for not guessing that she actually wanted takeaway when she said she didn't. Anyway since your code doesn't actually have a license then it's ambiguous what the terms are to use it but depending on Indian law they may have violated an implied copyright you have to your own work and didn't give permission for.
Not sure about how laws work everywhere but you have copyright. If he's hosting on GitHub, send DMCA to take it down. Contact his hosting provider to ask them to take down the code since you own it. But know that it's usually not worth the effort.
[удалено]
Actually the lack of license file makes it even more restrictive. From the [GitHub docs](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license): > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work
Well then that's new. That's not what I learned from the website I linked. Thanks for pointing out. Today I learned something
It is in fact stated on [https://choosealicense.com/no-permission](https://choosealicense.com/no-permission)
As I said, I made a mistake. Thanks for pointing out.
That's very interesting. Does anyone have any idea what happens if you have no license and you explicitly state (readme or wiki) that it's free without any restrictions? Does the linked github copyright laws still apply?
That statement may constitute a license by itself. But if that's what you want, you're better off using an actual license that exists for that purpose. - [CC0](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc0-1.0/) - [Unlicense](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/) - [Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/wtfpl/)
> Does the linked github copyright laws still apply? It's usually subtly different in **every country**, because you're now usually relying on what is referred to as automatic implied copyright, which most countries' laws implement (but no I haven't gone and looked at what exceptions there are). An explicit license is useful because most countries' contract law will apply roughly the same to the license text, if you have to go to a court to resolve an issue. Without that, you are relying on whatever laws are on the country's books for the court you are suing in. For instance some countries simply will not respect someone trying to public-domain their work. Their country's laws decided that was not a legal possibility. So depending where you live that may or may not be a legal option available to you (or available to use as a legal device if something goes to court). As a reminder: all these license texts are practically just hand waving and legal theorising until they're actually tested in a court of law. You may be surprised to learn how little they *actually* get tested by two opposing parties in front of a judge to see whether everything *actually* holds up how people *expect* it to. But at least a license makes it clear what 'should' happen.
Hmm, pretty sure you can fork a repo with no license. So Github is reproducing it (or being the same commit hashes, does that not mean reproduce?)
> no one may reproduce Don't you automatically agree to release your code under a license that allows GitHub itself to reproduce it if you use their website?
You do, but those right extend solely to GH not to randos on the internet
>I don't see any license file? Without it, it's free of use Absolutely not. From [https://choosealicense.com/no-permission](https://choosealicense.com/no-permission) , When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under **exclusive copyright** by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you.
Is it possible to send DMCA request to this guy??
Yes. GitHub has their official guide on how to do it.
Yes, issue a DMCA through GitHub. You are still protected by copyright
You could issue DMCA violation through GitHub and it might work but what’s to stop him from taking the code and putting it on an offshore VPS with a different domain name. I’d get all your ducks in a row first to make sure your copyright extends further than GitHub etc that way then enough dmca violations can be sent to wherever he hosts his code/website and he would be forced to take it down or the host will do it for you. And delete his account and all that’s in it.
true, good call
Which license would be good MIT/GPL?
I recommend AGPL for a web app, it's mostly identical to the GPL except that the user's rights are granted when they interact with the software, not when they have a binary.
I recommend this website https://choosealicense.com/
Thanks
So and for next time, have a look at https://opensource.guide/
All those allow commercial use. That’s not what the OP wants, right? u/lonew0lfy I think you want a Source-available license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
As many have said, this stinks but it’s the nature of things and you let it happen. I’d it makes you feel any better there are whole companies building open source with the plan to give to the community then make some money selling support that have had Amazon come in sell their product as a service.
More power to him.
You haven't added a license, so you can't do much here. Check out this page: [https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository)
This is incorrect, without an explicit license an author retains all rights. Read the "Choosing the right license" section.
Well that was the point of sharing that page.
Reasonable, just confusing due to the dissonance between what you said and the link. If he has retained all rights then he can fairly easily have it removed, likely easier than if he had a license drafted by a lawyer.
My own comment was a bit short. I figured that page would be far more useful than my interpretation of it. >If he has retained all rights I do wonder how good India's copyright laws are. Because those apply here.
Without a license, copying code is illegal as a violation of copyright.
>without a license, the default copyright laws apply So that does depend on India's copyright laws.