It’s not hard to find out about what script we are talking about… Imo, your item on CC is too much based on it. But, legally you’re right, version that was licensed under MIT still keeps it, but likely releasing another item based on it is not allowed.
Interesting what envato staff will say about this.
...but likely releasing another item based on it is not allowed.
Why you think so?
It’s not hard to find out about what script we are talking about… Imo, your item on CC is too much based on it
Why release something under MIT license if you don’t want people to use it?
VF saidMaybe, but my project is 95% done and from the law side I am clean…
Hope your current work is safe with the older version / license; however releasing a new version after knowing the original author’s bitterness is risky.
I think it can get ugly if author of turn.js will want to take a lawyer like he said in comments under your item.
Yeah it can get ugly but what can I do, thats not my fault and I am protected by the law… maybe I will develop my script supporting flip book it shouldn’t be that hard.
I am 99.9% positive that the one of the reasons MIT license is in existence is to protect the user of the code from exactly this. When you downloaded that script under the MIT license agreement in the first place you and the creator agreed that you as the user had the right to (and I quote) “to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so”.
From my understanding of the MIT it has 2 main intentions: 1) to protect the creator from legal responsibility for what the code is used for after released, and 2) to protect the user from things exactly like what that creator just did to you. When the creator originally released it as MIT he/she granted you those rights. As I understand it that protection and confidence for the user is one of the main intentions of the MIT license. They cannot go back and revoke those rights later: they’ve already granted them to you, and they agreed to it by releasing it MIT in the first place.
For the creator the only way to get around that is to do something like what fancybox did and create a brand new version of the code and release that under a new license, but users of the old code are still under the MIT that the old code was released under. When you release code under a license it is an agreement that both the creator and user are making, they are both bound to it…this guy can’t just decide he’s no longer bound to the agreement he made with you when he released it MIT , he gave you those rights when he originally released it.
Thanks for this MBMedia I agree 100% this is also my understanding of the license.
The reason why people use licenses like the MIT license rather then copyrighting stuff themselves is because copyrighting costs a lot of money.
However, this guy didn’t even probably bother reading the MIT license himself. Why should he get a cut of anything of yours. He made it for free under the MIT license and changing that afterwards is just a dick move.
Just watch him. Nothing is going to happen. He doesn’t have the money to sue you or he wouldn’t be trying to ripping you off in the first place.
Kubo, as long as you use the MIT version of the script I don’t see a problem there. The script is distributed “as is” along with a license. If either the license or the script changes, it’s a different package and should be treated as that. My impression is that the script author is now simply “crying over spilled milk”, because once you go MIT on something, you can’t just take it back lol. Regarding the lawyer, he is just playing you. I wouldn’t worry about it