Sad things

[HamzaYslmn]

I shared this project as open source because I wanted everyone to have fun with it and also learn how something like this can be built.

My only expectation was simple: if you use the code, respect the modified AGPL license and keep the original attribution. Mentioning the original creator is not a big request; it is the basic respect that keeps open source healthy.

Seeing projects that ignore this is honestly disappointing.

The project is already open source. I shared it so people can learn from it, understand the system, build similar things, improve it, and enjoy it. All I ask is that the license and attribution are respected.

---

RULE 10: Let's all have fun and play together!

---

BORGERone/Forza-Dualsense#1 (comment)

[Kajaqq]

Hi, just so you're aware -> this probably doesn't work the way you think it does.

Under AGPLv3 Section 7, non-permissive additional terms are allowed only in listed categories, including:

7(b): preserving specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions
7(c): prohibiting misrepresentation of origin or requiring modified versions to be marked
7(d): limiting publicity use of author/licensor names.

AGPLv3 then says: “All other non-permissive additional terms are considered ‘further restrictions’ within the meaning of section 10.” It also says that if a covered work contains a further restriction, you may remove that term.

Terms aren't permissive just cause you say they are -> they actually need to follow the strict guidelines that Section 7 presents.

In your case, it's important to note that 'author attribution' is just that, an attribution mark.
You can't expect others to add external links, you can only request people to do that, but can't force it on them.

See : https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gpl-compliant-legal-notices-author-attributions
For more details on how the FSF views this.

If your goal is to make sure people always include the donation links back to you, you can re-licence this under different terms that allow this, but you current work would still be under AGPLv3 that explicitly allows other people to remove it, as links do not qualify as an attribution notice.

[HamzaYslmn]

Hi, thanks for pointing this out.
I understand what you mean. I agree that sponsorship, donation, or external links should not be treated the same as legal attribution. I intentionally kept that part at request level, because I want the project to remain easy to use, modify, and distribute for everyone. If someone has heavily changed the application and does not want to keep a sponsorship link, that is okay with me.
The main issue for me is different: the original author attribution should still be preserved. Under the AGPL license, reasonable legal notices and author attributions are expected to be kept. That is the part I care about most.
So, in summary: sponsorship or donation links are a request. Proper author attribution is not just a request; it is a fundamental point that should be preserved. If a project is clearly based on this work, keeping the original author and license notice is important both for open-source respect and for licensing reasons.
That is why this situation was disappointing.

[HamzaYslmn]

Maybe you're right; I should update the license to fix this.