I'd have to agree with this stance. You choose MIT when you are happy to share your source with no strings attached. Some do pick MIT with this intent, but that was not the case here. But rather a case of either miscommunication or wanting to have the pie ("look how altruistic I am") and eating it too ("look how business-minded I am").

▲

sarlalian 6 days ago | parent [-]

I mean, there’s a chance it’s exactly what he said, “I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted the code to be available for people to learn from, and to make it easily auditable so users could validate claims I have made about the privacy and security of the platform.” … it doesn’t have to be some to be some sort of nefarious OSS altruism, it really could be, “maybe people would want to see how this works”… that ends up leading to … oh crap a bunch of people who have never contributed, and will never contribute, are hosting versions of what I created and taking money that I really would like to have to feed my family.

▲

pflenker 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

To be unfairly cynical here, the sentence you quoted sounds to me like "I chose to not have a front door. I didn't give it much thought at the time, but knew that I wanted my home to be available for people to learn from my interior design choices and decorations. Then I discovered that people walked in, started to eat out of my fridge, leave dirt everywhere and carry off some of my chairs, and it hurts".

The fault here lies not with the persons who use the maintainer's code exactly in line with the license, no matter what other _intentions_ he might have had.

	▲	madeofpalk 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		OP never talked about fault. They made an original decision, and now they've changed their mind. I don't see what the big deal is.

▲

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Possibly, but that would be pretty damning. A license isn't something you should YOLO. If he is that laissez-faire about licensing the source code then what other important aspects of the project has he not given sufficient thought.

	▲	latexr 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Misunderstanding or failing to predict the legal ramifications of choosing an extremely popular license is in no way an indicator of programming care or ability. They’re different sets of skills.
	▲	sarlalian 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Also, something starts off as a nothingburger side project, so you make some decisions based on that. Then it develops a bit, and turns into something you care about and are able to turn into a business. What people want and expect changes over time, and a license on a codebase that is basically developed by one person, isn't a marriage.