I contribute to an open-source app released under the MIT License. We've found apparently unchanged copies being sold in the Microsoft Store and elsewhere, sometimes with the original name removed but even the same screenshots used in the listing. The license permits this, but it feels misleading when someone charges money for software that is intentionally available for free and provides no meaningful improvements or support.
We're considering switching to a copyleft license, although GPL-style licenses still allow commercial resale as long as the license conditions are followed. A noncommercial or no-resale license might address the problem, but it would no longer qualify as open source and could affect where we host the project. We're also concerned that unofficial copies could omit attribution, mislead users, or potentially include malware.
What are the practical options here? Should we report these listings, register a trademark, or simply accept resale as part of distributing open-source software? Is changing the license likely to help, and is pursuing violations usually worth the legal cost?
5 Answers
Switching to GPL would not stop someone from selling the app. They could charge for it as long as they comply with GPL obligations, such as providing the corresponding source code and preserving the license terms. Copyleft mainly requires modifications and derivative distributions to remain under compatible terms; it is not a no-resale rule.
In practice, this may be more annoying than profitable. Focus on making the official version easy to find, keeping the name and branding recognizable, and reporting listings that violate attribution, trademark, store, or malware policies. If the copies are genuinely unchanged and compliant, there may be little legal leverage beyond accepting that resale is one of the freedoms the MIT License grants.
If preventing commercial resale is a firm requirement, you need a license that says so, but that would no longer be an open-source license. Some projects use source-available or delayed-open licenses, though those choices can reduce adoption and create compatibility problems. Be careful about changing the license for existing code: past releases remain available under their original terms, and contributors may need to agree before relicensing their work.
A trademark is often the more useful way to distinguish the official project from identical third-party builds. People may be allowed to redistribute the code, but they generally cannot imply that an unofficial copy is the official app or use protected branding without permission. Clear project branding and an official download channel can also make misleading listings easier for users to identify.
MIT explicitly allows commercial redistribution, but it still requires preserving the copyright and license notices. Check whether the copies actually include those notices in the application or distributed source. If they do not, you may have a copyright or license-compliance issue, and you can report it to the store. A takedown request may be more practical than trying to sue, although enforcement still takes time and evidence.
Related Questions
How To: Running Codex CLI on Windows with Azure OpenAI
Set Wordpress Featured Image Using Javascript
How To Fix PHP Random Being The Same
Why no WebP Support with Wordpress
Replace Wordpress Cron With Linux Cron
Customize Yoast Canonical URL Programmatically