When drawing the road between "highly relevant to developers" and "plainly answerable", I typically lean toward the second, but I am really curious to listen to exactly what the community needs to say relating to this. I've got a feeling this ought to be CW (I have never produced a CW subject), but I'll let someone with much more experience make that call.


Does "open-source" translate to "anybody may take my work and host it wherever and nonetheless they like"?

EDIT: For individuals asking, the license is LGPL.


My free title is located at Codeplex and it has been for a while now. Today, I observe that it is also located at Softpedia, without any apparent mention of the the initial author's actual site (the hyperlink can there be, a layer or two deep, although not nearly as conspicuously as it ought to be). They have copied all the relevant Codeplex-came from content and located it themselves... just like a mirror, but with no original author's understanding.

I wasn't told/requested/etc relating to this whatsoever. Does "open-source" translate to "anybody may take my work and host it wherever and nonetheless they like"?

I've no financial curiosity about this project. It is simply an enjoyable hobby -- for everyone user need and assist me to address my weak points like a developer (ideally collaboratively) -- and perhaps to "hand backInch . I'd be much more annoyed with this basically were attempting to make money out of this project... basically were producing ad revenue in the download site, for instance (When searching through the software's title, you'll now find Softpedia holding in Google's search engine results the positioning the project's Codeplex page accustomed to hold).

Regardless, I do not such as the give an impression of another site all of a sudden hosting, without my cooperation or blessing, not just the downloadable installer, but additionally my verbatim product description, screenshots, changelog, etc.

Yes, they have displayed my title, there is however not a way to make contact with me. Frankly, "my title" is the one thing I am most inflammed about them using without my understanding -- I'm not sure these folks, and that i haven't any need to be connected together or their website by any means.

I recieve it. I am online. I have made something. People are likely to connect to me -- which, again, this technically is (if you're able to discover the link), but this website just feels wrong.

Again, it might be different if the site were the most fundamental type of reviewof/commentaryon the merchandise. But this causes it to be seem like I have connected myself together -- produced a merchant account there, or something like that -- and that i haven't.

They list the license as, simply, "Free software", that is vague (as you would expect) in comparison towards the certification readily presented about the Codeplex site. Such as the perhaps-hidden connect to Codeplex, their meaning of "free software" is described in greater detail elsewhere on the site, but it is not too apparent as on Codeplex. And That I haven't even considered yet if/how their "Free software" definition is different from "my" intentions in selecting LGPL.

I've not attempted to make contact with these people, yet, but my optimism is not high when i start to engage people that duplicate others' content without including them (again, no "submission" of content happened here, as well as their site offers no unique commentary/complement to my work).

I am wishing someone has something helpful/useful to provide? I like this project (it's my first open-source attempt). I'm not going that it is a headache, for me personally or my customers?

Is just a part of becoming an open-source software author who provides a

Yes, anybody can host it. Look whatsoever the places you will get versions of GCC, for instance - there has to be 1000's! However when it involves the license, altering that's typically not permitted, therefore if the replicated site tries to utilize a different license in the one you used initially (especially if this is among the GNU licenses), then you've grounds for complaint. Within this situation, your best choice it to describe towards the copy machines that the code is LGPL which license can't be transformed, and when this fails, contact their Web service provider.