this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
52 points (98.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54577 readers
197 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

How is it MIT licensed and "NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY". You can't have both.

This is misleading, because if you search for MIT licensed software this will show up, but it's not that. Limiting commercial use means it's not even considered open source but just source available

[–] alphapuggle@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe the "non-commercial use only" is regarding the subtitles themselves, not the code. Im sure any commercial use using stolen subtitles from other services wouldn't go over well

[–] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So it means something like "Please do not use this for paid warez, I don't want DMCA this repo". Makes more sense.

But sooner or later someone will do it, I don't see that single sentence will stop a get quick buck script kiddie from an undisclosed eastern european country...

[–] alphapuggle@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

That's how I'm reading it at least

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

If it's licensed under MIT, you can use it under MIT. Additional marking doesn't change that. You'd have to stop licensing it under the MIT license first, either by modifying it or using something else entirely.