Copied Repls Aren't Being Taken Down

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

Yes but you can still have your own license in addition to the MIT one.

Not for public repls … whatever you put is automatically MIT. It is the spirit of repl.

If I understand this topic correctly, that means that your Repl will be dual licenced, meaning that both licenses apply. Thus, the MIT license can be used.

It only says that you can’t change the default license, not that you can’t have more than one.

For specific Repls, we may offer features to allow users to change the default license to other users on Replit.

While true, the more permissive license will prevail, which in this case is the MIT license. So dual licensing isn’t that useful if your aim is to prevent copying of your code.

2 Likes

IT says you have a dual licence when you upload to a public repl and on repl is MIT

ok this is all very nice but the main thing he wants (garnered from conversation) is to make close source repls that can be run w/o forking. Of course, you would have to do an entire rework of your system but that’s what he wants

It is called private repl … but then he cannot show his work to others