[ANarrativeApe]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it time to update the open source licenses in the light of this behavior? If so, what should the evolved license wording be?

I appreciate that this could be easily circumvented by a 'bad actor', but it would make this abuse overt...

[mook]

They already ignore copyright. The open source licenses are based on copyright, so changing the licenses wouldn't do squat, they'd still ignore it.

See also: Meta being sued for torrenting. Since this is an Ars Technica article, here's another one: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o...

[pabs3]

That wouldn't be an Open Source Definition compliant license. More in this subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43423595

[johnnyanmac]

From my little understanding, we have a sort of agreement in place with an item called robot.txt that's more or less a hanshake with such scrapers. Of course, the issue is these scrapers are blatantly ignoring robots.txt

A license can help as well, but what's a license without enforcement? These companies are simply treating the courts as a cost to do business.

[CaptainFever]

Close, robots.txt was originally for web crawlers, to reduce accidental denial-of-service attacks. It had nothing to do with the scraping (i.e. downloading content and parsing the HTML tags in a programmatic manner).