Hacker News Reader

Comment by DelightOne | Hacker News Reader

How do you avoid malicious users publishing your content public? Or is it just not an issue yet?

This is indeed a problem. However, given that you need to pay for a subscription to get access, I consider the risk rather low. The Insiders code is released under the same license (MIT), as I didn't want to make things complicated, so I couldn't even enforce someone publishing it. I have a fair-use policy [1] that (up to now) all users respect.

Yes, the model is far from being perfect, but it allows me to pay at least some of my bills. I'm always curious to learn how to improve it!

[1]: https://squidfunk.github.io/mkdocs-material/insiders/#terms

I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.

Remaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way).

So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.

How to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?

It's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.

> different licensing would make it more complicated for companies

True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".

No company (that cares about licences in the first place(!)) is going to touch 'MIT, but with some words removed'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com