Everyone gets to dictate what happens to their own work — or, at least, they should.
This is fascinating — and I apologize for being one of the wonks who jumped on your language.
Ben Werdmuller

Ernest Rutherford started nuclear physics and I am not sure he would agree with a nuclear bomb.

The world should/could be different but… the work under discussion was “given away” from the day one. If the author published something for the world to use freely, he is unable to un-publish it. It is technically impossible and legally unenforceable due to the *original* terms of distribution. The author has published the code (idea) and received community thanks and recognition in exchange, the transaction is closed.

To extend the argument in the case under discussion, I would express an opinion that if the author would control the use of code (with GPL-type license, for example) then the code would not get wide adoption and, most probably, the author would not receive his part of the deal — community thanks and recognition. The situation would be too uncertain legally to build anything on top of it so people would stay away from that code.

The summary: like it or not, you cannot have it both ways.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.