这个视频非法使用您的项目

[shangguanlingyu]

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18d4y1c7wd This is a video connection He used your project to make videos without specifying the mod download address and the author You must pay attention to the video publisher to download this mod through other channels

[JustaSqu1d]

The title reads "this video illegally uses your project" by the way.

Anyways, it doesn't because the license of this mod is preserved. The MIT license also gives users express permission to reuse code for any purpose, sometimes even if code is part of proprietary software. It's not illegal.

[beyond-dinosaur]

OK.Anyways,others can't use it to grew fat on illegal profits without permission.

[JustaSqu1d]

OK.Anyways,others can't use it to grew fat on illegal profits without permission.

Actually, they can according to the MIT License.

[JamesGreen31]

Yea this is kinda why I thought about switching the license to GPL3.0 or some of the similar. However, past builds are under the MIT license, so it's kinda moot at this point.

As long as people aren't making money off it, I'm probably not gonna switch the license.

@adrisj7 what do you think? Should we switch to a license that requires acknowledgement?

[JamesGreen31]

Note: MPL 2.0 is probably the best license for us. It lets people use the project however they want (including in closed source, for profit ventures), but also requires them to push changes to our upstream (or at least make them AV) so we can benefit from them.

Ofc, this is only the case if people actually adhere to licenses. I probably wouldn't pursue violators unless they were making bank.

The problem with things like GPL or AGPL is that you have to get really involved with license management. It also makes it harder for contributors as they also must adhere to the license.

For now, I think we will consider switching to MPL2, but I'm not gonna go much farther.

[TacoTechnica]

I think requiring an upstream contribution makes sense in the event that other people make money, to level the playing field.

I'm also generally against paying for minecraft mods, I really should have considered that when picking the license instead of haphazardly picking one. However if somebody is just using this mod to scam people I don't think a license will stop them.

However people should be able to hold onto private branches to mess around with things themselves, so I guess it depends on how strict the wording is.

With regards to using without crediting, I think it's difficult to add "give credit to the creator" in a license, that feels like it's a morally correct decision rather than a license one. Also if someone steals a piece of open source software/claims credit as their own it's hard to DMCA them or deliver consequences, by the time we realize they stole it it's already too late. This happened on r/minecraft and I'm sure it's happening in other places. The only counter to that is if the project gets popular enough to the point that it's harder to trick people.

[JamesGreen31]

This is what different licenses do @adrisj7.

Basically, they implement the legal ability to pursue violators of the licensing terms.

Like you said though, it's nearly impossible to enforce.

Also, we already selected MIT, so it's kinda too late now.

In the future, I recommend looking at license requirements. If we ever decide to pursue alto 2 in a for profit way (such as hosting a server that allows people to buy bots to join the world), a more appropriate license would be in order.

I'm going to close this issue though as it honestly isn't worth pursuing.