When drawing the line between "relevant to programmers" and "plainly answerable", I typically lean toward the latter, but I'm really curious to hear what the community has to say about this. I have a feeling this should be CW (I've never created a CW topic), but I'll let someone with more SO experience make that call.

Summary:

Does "open-source" translate to "anyone can take my work and host it wherever and however they like"?

EDIT: For those asking, the license is LGPL.

Details:

My open source title is hosted at Codeplex and has been for some time now. Today, I see that it's also hosted at Softpedia, with no obvious reference to the original author's actual site (the link is there, a layer or two deep, but not nearly as prominently as it should be). They've duplicated all of the relevant Codeplex-originated content and hosted it themselves... like a mirror, but without the original author's knowledge.

I wasn't told/asked/etc about this at all. Does "open-source" translate to "anyone can take my work and host it wherever and however they like"?

I have no monetary interest in this project. It's just a fun hobby -- to serve user need and help me address my weaknesses as a developer (ideally collaboratively) -- and maybe to "give back" . I'd be even more annoyed by this if I were trying to make money from this project... if I were generating ad revenue from the download site, for example (When searching by the software's name, you'll now find Softpedia holding in Google's search results the position that the project's Codeplex page used to hold).

Regardless, I don't like the smell of another site suddenly hosting, without my cooperation or blessing, not only the downloadable installer, but also my verbatim product description, screenshots, changelog, etc.

Yes, they've displayed my name, but there's no way to contact me. Frankly, "my name" is the thing I'm most irritated about them using without my knowledge -- I don't know these people, and I don't have any desire to be associated with them or their site in any way.

I get it. I'm online. I've made something. People are going to link to me -- which, again, this technically is (if you can find the link), but this site just feels wrong.

Again, it would be different if this site were even the most basic kind of reviewof/commentaryon the product. But this makes it look like I've associated myself with them -- created an account there, or something -- and I haven't.

They list the license as, simply, "Freeware", which is vague (to say the least) compared to the licensing readily presented on the Codeplex site. Like the arguably-hidden link to Codeplex, their definition of "freeware" is explained in more detail elsewhere on their site, but it's not so obvious as on Codeplex. And I haven't even considered yet if/how their "Freeware" definition differs from "my" intentions in choosing LGPL.

I haven't tried to contact these folks, yet, but my optimism isn't high as I begin to engage folks who duplicate others' content without involving them (again, no "submission" of content happened here, and their site offers no unique commentary/complement to my work).

I'm hoping someone has something useful/helpful to offer? I enjoy this project (it's my first open-source attempt). I don't want it to be a headache, for me or my users?

Is this just part of being an open-source software author who gives a

Comments

Which license did you list in the code?

Written by Rob Z

Just notify Softpedia that you're the creator of this product and provide them the additional information that you would like them to add. I bet someone just uploaded it with minimal information to their site. Thus, if they receive more information, they're likely to add it to this product.

Written by Wim ten Brink

The license is LGPL.

Written by lance

Accepted Answer

Written by
This page was build to provide you fast access to the question and the direct accepted answer.
The content is written by members of the stackoverflow.com community.
It is licensed under cc-wiki