523 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 3 years
  • Has referred 1000+ members
  • Has sold $10,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has been a beta tester for an Envato feature
+10 more
Zeplix says

+1, This is what should be considered seriously. The guy who made the core work deserves atleast some basic level respect from users.

I think this is key. I think that’s most of what I find dislikeable about many of the posts in this thread… there seems to be a complete disregard for the original creator, even though he’s the one making it all possible. Common respect, that’s the very least you can do, instead of post after post just going “tell him to go F himself”.

941 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 3 years
  • Has sold $5,000+ on Envato Market
  • Located in Canada
  • Has collected 10+ items on Envato Market
+3 more
graphicmind says

I don’t understand; how can a script that is being distributed outside of the Envato marketplaces be used in an Envato item?

What happens to exclusivity….?

1234 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 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 the course of discussion I think a few important parts of the series of events were forgotten:

What happened was that MPC used a piece of MIT licensed code (which was perfectly fine and normal, we all do it, jQuery is MIT licensed code as well). Not only did MPC credit the creator of that code, but also intended on donating some profits to that author.

But the author of that MIT licensed code, after noticing that MPC had made a product using it that had made some money, decided to “change” the license and then contact MPC to ransom him and demand amounts of money from the product (fairly substantial amounts) using scare tactics, false accusations, and threats.

Since then there’s been 2 lines of discussion:

first: legally can he do that? (the answer unambiguously being “no”, the MIT protects you from that, that’s one of the reasons it was originally conceived and written, that’s been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse and you should read from the beginning to learn about that part of the discussion)

second: morally it was always right to both credit and monetarily reward the author of that MIT licensed code for their contribution, no one argued against that. But after that person’s ridiculous behavior MPC is a little less willing to do so than he originally was. And honestly none of us were on the receiving end of the threats and accusations being put forth by that programmer, so I say we shouldn’t judge or attempt to judge MPC for feeling that way.

7606 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
  • Located in Europe
+5 more
doru says

I don’t know if this advice was given already in the thread but…

just ignore him.

you can’t use that third party code from now on off course.

6025 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

Yeah, mpc didn’t made any mistake and infact was ready to pay for commercial license. That’s all any author in this situation can do to help the original author’s mistake of choosing wrong license.

That’s one part of the scenario but personally I was disappointed about the fact that not many of the authors/coders in the forum couldn’t grasp how valuable the original code/concept was (js/css based page flip that runs on iOS). That points the original author was not someone who uses MIT as bait for future blackmail (many of our authors thinks that way). Definitely that guy doesn’t deserve bad words for making such a file.

Respecting the original author’s current decision is one thing, another thing is own safety while releasing the product with old license after change of license/intention. Legally that may be fine but in problematic situations, I don’t think Envato (or any 3rd party) would investigate the proofs to back the author; chances are to just freeze the file and leave everything into the author’s own efforts. That’s why I say the 2nd release after license change is risky.

3749 posts
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Located in Spain
  • Has sold $125,000+ on Envato Market
  • Helped several times protecting Envato Market against copyright violations
+9 more
pezflash says

I’m absolutely agree with Ramesh (VF). And even ignoring what the original author deserves, consider that if that guy sends a DMCA to Envato regarding the new file, Envato will automatically remove your item MPC , not asking anything else (or at least, this way had happen other times, as far as i knew), so i don’t think you should be taking the risk.

I’m sure you can reach a finally (friendly) agreement. Of course, the 75% he asked is too much, but anything on life can be talked and discussed.

(wonder what would happen in this marketplace if jQuery authors decide to remove the mit licensing from now on… :) )

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

Yeah, mpc didn’t made any mistake and infact was ready to pay for commercial license. That’s all any author in this situation can do to help the original author’s mistake of choosing wrong license.

That’s one part of the scenario but personally I was disappointed about the fact that not many of the authors/coders in the forum couldn’t grasp how valuable the original code/concept was (js/css based page flip that runs on iOS). That points the original author was not someone who uses MIT as bait for future blackmail (many of our authors thinks that way). Definitely that guy doesn’t deserve bad words for making such a file.

Respecting the original author’s current decision is one thing, another thing is own safety while releasing the product with old license after change of license/intention. Legally that may be fine but in problematic situations, I don’t think Envato (or any 3rd party) would investigate the proofs to back the author or just freeze the file and leave everything into the author’s own efforts. That’s why I say the 2nd release after license change is risky.

True, everyone is missing the point that the script is pure gold. Plus if it were me I couldn’t relax myself.

5360 posts The Dude Abides
  • Located in United States
  • 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 5 years
+9 more
CodingJack says

I agree with both Rimmon and MB’s points. On the one hand, he did put the script out there as MIT and when you do that you have to sort of understand what that means. On the other hand, it’s an amazing script that might be worth 100k here on CodeCanyon.

3072 posts
  • Has referred 50+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 10+ items on Envato Market
  • Had an item featured on Envato Market
+5 more
wickedpixel says

Anyone sent him this thread?

2195 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

Thank you for your contribution and sharing your opinion, I am closing the thread, cheers!

by
by
by
by
by
by