Copied Repls Aren't Being Taken Down

I and some other people on Replit are reporting copied repls and no one will do anything about it. Someone copied my code and is botting likes and runs on their repl that is copied from me and it is still up on the trending page a week after I reported it. Before you close this topic, I want to know why you are so eager to take down people who aren’t doing anything wrong, yet when someone is doing crimes against the coding community, no one will take action.

1 Like

You can’t do anything about it, unless you have a license stating people can’t steal your code.

2 Likes

You have no right to ask the repl to be taken down on replit … I do believe you can ask for accreditation, but a lot depends in if you put a license file in the repl

2 Likes

You can’t do anything about it, unless you have a license stating people can’t steal your code. (@Sky said), Also if you don’t have a license (for any legal reasons) then you can just buy Hacker/Pro plan

2 Likes

The license is a good idea. I’ve seen Repls that use them. For example, Bookie0’s bounceCSS uses some creative commons licensing so that if you modify a fork you must give credit.

1 Like

You can find a list of used/popular licenses in Licenses – Open Source Initiative

2 Likes

but public repls are MIT licensed so they should take copies down if they don’t accredit the author

2 Likes

MIT does not include accreditation but usage of MIT back

I currently have my project under an AGPLv3 Licence. This means that the person MUST give credit to me for the source code AND must comply with any other terms that I set for the source code being used by other parties.

1 Like

If you have stated the licence then yes. But I have the feeling replit does not care and somewhere it might be written in the tos every thing is MIT. Maybe worth a check

2 Likes

There are two problems here, botting, and copying. Can we at least fix trending first? Then copied repls wouldn’t rise up and get so much (real and fake) attention.

2 Likes

Exactly! The only quality repls that get on trending are from big creators. Everything else is low-quality, copied work, that has botted likes & runs.

2 Likes

Honestly the problem is with security, they need to add a signature to the eps (TikTok does the exact same thing).

1 Like

I have, in fact, stated the license. It is in the files. Are you saying I need to put that in the disc as well?

you need a license file, but we better check replit ToS as it might state all projects are MIT meaning that whatever the replit includes is irrelevant

I thought UMARismyname already said that they were:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Please point out where MIT states attribution.

3 Likes

Ok, first of all, this was not the point of the thread. Second, if you read carefully above that, it says, “Content you create in a public Repl or in Teams for Friends is automatically subject to an MIT license.” This means that it automatically applied to all public repls. What this DOESN’T mean is that it is the ONLY license that can apply. For example, The user might be able to have their own license ie. an AGPLv3 Licence and have that for their repl.

2 Likes

The point of the thread is to ask for copies to be taken down. To do so, there must be legal ground and stating MIT is the legal ground is incorrect.
The ToS is unclear and because of its ambiguity about being MIT the overriding license of public repl or not, it means if replit takes something down because of license issues they could be sued.

The summary is, if you care about license, do not put in public and share via github with a LICENCE file in it.

5 Likes

Hi, I’m happy to offer some clarification here. As others have mentioned above, the MIT license is automatically applied to public Repls, and this is a very permissive open source license which allows others to fork and remix.

Q: How can I stop someone from forking my code?

A: The best solution is to make your Repl private. A private Repl can be licensed under any license that you wish, and the best way to indicate that is to include a license file with the code. If you don’t include a license file in your private Repl, then by default you are retaining all rights and copying is not allowed at all. If someone forks a private Repl and makes it public in violation of its license, you can report this and we will delete the public fork.

Q: What license should I choose in order to ensure that my code retains its attribution and isn’t relicensed under MIT?

A: There are a lot of options here. The two main options are proprietary or open source. A proprietary license generally prohibits copying at all. An open source license generally allows copying, but may include conditions such as retaining attribution and keeping forks under the same license. We can’t recommend a specific open source license because there are so many, but you can check out some options at Licenses – Open Source Initiative.

Q: What if private code, or code that is already licensed under a more restrictive license, (eg. GPL) is uploaded to Replit?

A: If you wrote that code, then you are its owner, so by uploading it to Replit you are dual-licensing it so that it is available under the MIT license also. If you did not write the code, then most likely you are not its owner, and you could be infringing copyright by uploading it under the MIT license. The copyright owner could then send Replit a DMCA notice, and we would take the code down.

Q: Is there any other way to get my code taken down?

A: If a public Repl doesn’t otherwise violate Replit’s Terms of Service, we won’t delete it or warn a user for forking it. However, if they remove your attribution from your original code and present it as their own, this amounts to plagiarism and we will unpublish it from Community at your request. The code will still be available on the user’s account, but it won’t be able to trend.

If you have any more questions, please follow up and I’ll be happy to try to answer. I hope this helps!

10 Likes