Copied Repls Aren't Being Taken Down

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

I appreciate your response however, I don’t have a problem with people forking my repl, they stole the code and didn’t give me any credit.

Please don’t encourage proprietary software!

2 Likes

Where was it copied from? In other words, where and how did you originally publish it?

1 Like

I just published it on Replit. Instead of forking it, they copied the code.

Imagine git init + git remote add github some://random/github/repo + git commit -a -m whee + git push github + create new repl from gh repo

The MIT license does allow them to do that. However, you are welcome to report any such copies of your code and we will remove them from Community so that they don’t trend.

2 Likes

This is allowed under MIT. If you do not like it go private or local, but asking replit to change their way of working is not going to work.

I did that over a week ago and nothing happened. See here and here

And every time we talk about it in ask, they tell us, “just report it” but I already did that before talking about it on ask. Then they unlist the topic and then proceed to not do anything to the repl I reported OVER A WEEK AGO…

Because you have no ground for asking any action. You post code here public, anybody can copy, fork it, do whatever. I believe this was said like 10 times already.
I am sorry for you it was taken, but it was not stolen. Take it as a lesson and move on.

I don’t think you understand XD. I 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. AND, @qirtaiba JUST said:

So it was, in fact, stolen.

IF your repl was public you have agree to ToS of REPL stating basically the licence is MIT and cannot be changed.

1 Like

That is not what it says :confused:
Licensing information | Replit Docs

It says the MIT license.

…we may offer features to allow users to change the default license…

They do not do that as of now so it is on the MIT license.

Let me quote the ToS for you:

“Content you create in a public Repl or in Teams for Friends is automatically subject to an MIT license.”

“For specific Repls, we may offer features to allow users to change the default license to other users on Replit. For example, we might enable the ability to earn or to pay in Cycles for rights in a Repl, or for access to specific features or digital items.”

So it is offered features that alter the license not the user.

" Private Repls and Teams

Content in a private Repl and private Team is licensed to Replit on a platform basis under the Terms of Service.

If you would like to attach your own license to the code, we recommend you include the license as a (code) comment or a readme.txt file, as part of the Repl."

Meaning attaching a license file is valid only for private REPLs.
I think we reached a point that this thread has gone long enough

1 Like