4140 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $5,000+ on Envato Market
  • Located in Brazil
+3 more
tsafi says

Thanks for this MBMedia I agree 100% this is also my understanding of the license.
Its logic…. but think good, did they force us here on envato to update our exiting files that had GS class base on the new license or just the new ones ?
maybe that example will answered your Q
6086 posts
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $125,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
+8 more
VF says

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 ;)

Exactly that is the case. However, don’t tease that talented guy just with the legal rights allowed on MIT . Showing respect to the work definitely needed. Personally I always donate if I am able to see a donate button for MIT downloads and also inform the author where it going to be used/sold.

As authors we also don’t know much about our own products license terms LOL :D

1878 posts YOU TOUCH IT YOU BUY IT
  • Has referred 200+ members
  • Has sold $500,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 100+ items on Envato Market
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+6 more
FRESHFACE says

I know he released it for free under a license which doesn’t require you to give him a single penny but have you at least donated towards the work this guy has done which has got you nearly 300 sales?

That’s a good moral question, but nothing more. I personally wouldn’t give him a dime after threatening with lawyers and all that 75% business. You should be able to tell on your own when you make a mistake and when it’s time to move on. He made a mistake so why should Kuba be punished?

edit: This whole thing smells with greed and envy, I don’t like it :)

4140 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $5,000+ on Envato Market
  • Located in Brazil
+3 more
tsafi says


Thanks for this MBMedia I agree 100% this is also my understanding of the license.
Its logic…. but think good, did they force us here on envato to update our exiting files that had GS class base on the new license or just the new ones ?
maybe that example will answered your Q
I browse in our history …here what they say.

Important: FlashDen authors who have files that use GreenSock code must either buy the corporate license, use different code, or remove their files. Jack has generously given us until March 1st to switch over.

1234 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
  • Has referred 50+ members
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
+5 more
MBMedia says

In fact the MIT license even provides full redistribution rights. Not only can you keep creating projects with it, you would even have the right to start your own site distributing his own unchanged code-base, still licensed as MIT . (that would be a dick move…but I’m just saying that to illustrate the point)

If he creates new versions of the code that he releases under a new license then he can tell you not to use those. But the version you have right now that you got as an MIT licensed piece, you can use for whatever you want from now until kingdom come for whatever you want (old projects or new, redistributing it itself or a project made with it, etc.) because that right was granted to you when he distributed it to you as MIT . When you release something MIT you are giving away rights to it completely. Once given you don’t have the right to revoke them later.

I know it sounds “piraty” for me to talk like that because that guy did create that code…but you created a business plan around what rights you knew you had with that code, and you did it properly and correctly. He doesn’t have the right to come in and and revoke rights in order to change that business plan to give himself monetary gain from it. You were the one that monetized the code, and you did it within your rights. I have people that buy my $50 templates that I spent months on, customize them for 1 hr and re-sell them to a client for $5,0000. I’m can’t go changing their rights to my template so that I get a big cut of that, because that was their client that they came up with a way of monetizing the template for, I gave them the right to do that when I put it up for sale for $50 and good for them that they were smart enough to monetize their purchase of it. If you want to be nice to the guy then offer him a small temporary percentage such as 5% or maybe a little less just out of the goodness of your heart. But if he refuses then tell him to get lost: he granted you rights to that code.

1234 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
  • Has referred 50+ members
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
+5 more
MBMedia says


Thanks for this MBMedia I agree 100% this is also my understanding of the license.
Its logic…. but think good, did they force us here on envato to update our exiting files that had GS class base on the new license or just the new ones ?
maybe that example will answered your Q

That comes down to what the original license was, and whether or not the new license is for new versions of the code, or applied to the old versions.

I honestly don’t remember if greensock was originally MIT . But even if it was, any new versions of the greensock code could have been released under a new license no problem. Or if greensock’s original license terms did not grant you as many rights as MIT does then they again could change the license and even apply it backwards to old versions, because it hand’t fully given away rights to the user, it kept some for the author.

But we’re not talking about the general idea of license changes, we’re talking specifically about the MIT and a version of the code that was released as MIT (as opposed to a new version released under a different license), because I’m fairly sure the MIT is specifically designed to protect the user from things such as license changes :)

2197 posts
  • Has referred 200+ members
  • Has sold $500,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
+13 more
mpc says


I know he released it for free under a license which doesn’t require you to give him a single penny but have you at least donated towards the work this guy has done which has got you nearly 300 sales?

That’s a good moral question, but nothing more. I personally wouldn’t give him a dime after threatening with lawyers and all that 75% business. You should be able to tell on your own when you make a mistake and when it’s time to move on. He made a mistake so why should Kuba be punished?

edit: This whole thing smells with greed and envy, I don’t like it :)

Yeah exactly, to answer your question MSFX I was going to donate him when I receive the payment for my work from Envato, it is still not on my personal account. After all of this I am very sorry but I wont donate even 1 cent.

1633 posts fueledweb.com
  • Has referred 10+ members
  • Has sold $125,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 10+ items on Envato Market
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
+6 more
RimmonTrieu says

There may be several points of view in this matter. Personally I can understand why the original author does this. It may sound greedy at first but the flipping effect is quite unique and your file was practically built on top of that. I can’t say it right or wrong but for me I’ll stay away from getting source code that is too special, no matter what license it is. It’ll be so headache and you don’t want to get into legal stuff and copyright nuisance later on.

1234 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 6 years
  • Has referred 50+ members
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
+5 more
MBMedia says

There may be several points of view in this matter. Personally I can understand why the original author does this. It may sound greedy at first but the flipping effect is quite unique and your file was practically built on top of that. I can’t say it right or wrong but for me I’ll stay away from getting source code that is too special, no matter what license it is. It’ll be so headache and you don’t want to get into legal stuff and copyright nuisance later on.

I agree, though I should point out that that’s the moral issue, not the legal issue (let’s make sure to keep those separate in our heads, not that you weren’t, but for the sake of people skimming I wanted to point it out). The moral issue gets a little weird though because of the fact that the person was an absolute a**hole to mpc…so I guess that depends on how forgiving mpc is :)

2197 posts
  • Has referred 200+ members
  • Has sold $500,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
+13 more
mpc says

There may be several points of view in this matter. Personally I can understand why the original author does this. It may sound greedy at first but the flipping effect is quite unique and your file was practically built on top of that. I can’t say it right or wrong but for me I’ll stay away from getting source code that is too special, no matter what license it is. It’ll be so headache and you don’t want to get into legal stuff and copyright nuisance later on.

Yeah sure, but why did he released this under MIT license in the first place. It was obvious somebody will make money out of it. The MIT license is clear so I think there will be no copyright nuisance later on….

by
by
by
by
by
by