The licenser did nothing wrong imo. It may not have had much of a direct effect but it sent a message, and hopefully encouraged others to act in some way too.
The licenser did nothing wrong imo. It may not have had much of a direct effect but it sent a message, and hopefully encouraged others to act in some way too.
He did quite a few things wrong in my opinion. Firstly his license changes go against the spirit of free software, second he submitted several pull requests accusing the maintainers of projects...
He did quite a few things wrong in my opinion. Firstly his license changes go against the spirit of free software, second he submitted several pull requests accusing the maintainers of projects that use Lerna of being racists. It’s a sensitive situation but grandstanding and name calling aren’t doing anything positive.
I don't care about this for several reasons: I don't believe in copyright, and trying to turn the State's systems against itself in this way helps to highlight the absurdity of the system. Just...
Firstly his license changes go against the spirit of free software
I don't care about this for several reasons:
I don't believe in copyright, and trying to turn the State's systems against itself in this way helps to highlight the absurdity of the system.
Just like free speech absolutism ends up being an untenable position, so too does free software absolutism. If the literal historic nazi's were still around, would you be OK with them using your software in the name of freedom (even when they are actively trying to restrict the freedoms of anyone the fascist state has labeled as an enemy)? Probably not, so there's clearly some limit to the
he submitted several pull requests accusing the maintainers of projects that use Lerna of being racists. It’s a sensitive situation but grandstanding and name calling aren’t doing anything positive.
Haven't heard about that. That's certainly uncool. (potentially unwitting) racist collaborators at worst.
That’s an interesting comparison from free speech to free software, I hadn’t ever thought of it like that. I dont agree with absolutism in either case, but I think it’s important to know what...
That’s an interesting comparison from free speech to free software, I hadn’t ever thought of it like that. I dont agree with absolutism in either case, but I think it’s important to know what you’re hoping to gain by sacrificing a particular case of freedom. For example, we give up the right to speak hateful things against minority groups, in order to gain more freedom for those groups to be a part of society. In this case the contributor to lerna gave up the free part of this free software, but it’s unclear to me what they hoped to gain by sacrificing that freedom.
What he hoped to gain was for these companies to pull their support for ICE, in order to put more pressure on them to lighten up on their treatment of undocumented immigrants and their families....
What he hoped to gain was for these companies to pull their support for ICE, in order to put more pressure on them to lighten up on their treatment of undocumented immigrants and their families. You can disagree with that goal, but he was pretty clear about it up front.
Are you allowed to append your own conditions to the MIT license like that? I don't agree with what happened but I am unsure if its something that's acceptable? because usually I see people put a...
Are you allowed to append your own conditions to the MIT license like that? I don't agree with what happened but I am unsure if its something that's acceptable? because usually I see people put a license for their project or re-license something if appropriate but the terms are left as originally written.
Yes, but it's then no longer the MIT license, so the "MIT License" title in the license would have to be removed, and any mention of the project being licensed under the MIT license would have to...
Yes, but it's then no longer the MIT license, so the "MIT License" title in the license would have to be removed, and any mention of the project being licensed under the MIT license would have to be changed.
Further, the project is no longer free software, since you've now added a restriction to who can use, modify, and distribute the software.
Finally, all 169 contributors have committed code under the MIT license. Unless they all signed a CLA giving you the right to re-license their code (which I don't think this project did), you'd have to get all 169 contributors' explicit permission to re-license their code, and you'd have to remove and replace the code from anyone who doesn't agree, which is a whole other issue.
Ironic how they're hosting the project on Github, which is owned by Microsoft, and I believe uses Amazon's AWS, two companies named in their ICE list.
I don't see why not. It's not like you're required to use a prewritten license for your software. You're more than free to use whatever license you want, custom or cookie-cutter, so long as the...
I don't see why not. It's not like you're required to use a prewritten license for your software. You're more than free to use whatever license you want, custom or cookie-cutter, so long as the work you're basing your work on doesn't have a license prohibiting you from doing so.
What exactly is unenforceable about it? If Microsoft uses it internally and some internally reports them for it, would the owner of the license not be able to take them to court over it? Or do...
What exactly is unenforceable about it? If Microsoft uses it internally and some internally reports them for it, would the owner of the license not be able to take them to court over it? Or do courts reject this kind of targeted exclusion?
Maybe this would be a good time to review the JSON License, which has caused some companies to reach out to Crockford to arrange alternative licensing arrangements. I don't have any personal...
Maybe this would be a good time to review the JSON License, which has caused some companies to reach out to Crockford to arrange alternative licensing arrangements.
I don't have any personal issues with someone choosing to attempt to mitigate any potential damages their own code might do. Blacklisting is an issue, as you can catch innocent people, and not catch worse.
But, a broad, nice and vague statement, tends to be quite useful in legalities.
That just sounds unenforceable, useless and maybe even harmful (because it makes the whole license kinda iffy). What's "good" and "evil" in the eye of the law?
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
That just sounds unenforceable, useless and maybe even harmful (because it makes the whole license kinda iffy). What's "good" and "evil" in the eye of the law?
IBM seems to think it's possibly enforceable, and I believe that in practice it would serve much the same function as the medical world's oath to do no harm.
The originator of the blacklisting license is having a fiery day on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1035160061323042816
Thanks for sharing!
The licenser did nothing wrong imo. It may not have had much of a direct effect but it sent a message, and hopefully encouraged others to act in some way too.
He did quite a few things wrong in my opinion. Firstly his license changes go against the spirit of free software, second he submitted several pull requests accusing the maintainers of projects that use Lerna of being racists. It’s a sensitive situation but grandstanding and name calling aren’t doing anything positive.
I don't care about this for several reasons:
I don't believe in copyright, and trying to turn the State's systems against itself in this way helps to highlight the absurdity of the system.
Just like free speech absolutism ends up being an untenable position, so too does free software absolutism. If the literal historic nazi's were still around, would you be OK with them using your software in the name of freedom (even when they are actively trying to restrict the freedoms of anyone the fascist state has labeled as an enemy)? Probably not, so there's clearly some limit to the
Haven't heard about that. That's certainly uncool. (potentially unwitting) racist collaborators at worst.
That’s an interesting comparison from free speech to free software, I hadn’t ever thought of it like that. I dont agree with absolutism in either case, but I think it’s important to know what you’re hoping to gain by sacrificing a particular case of freedom. For example, we give up the right to speak hateful things against minority groups, in order to gain more freedom for those groups to be a part of society. In this case the contributor to lerna gave up the free part of this free software, but it’s unclear to me what they hoped to gain by sacrificing that freedom.
What he hoped to gain was for these companies to pull their support for ICE, in order to put more pressure on them to lighten up on their treatment of undocumented immigrants and their families. You can disagree with that goal, but he was pretty clear about it up front.
Are you allowed to append your own conditions to the MIT license like that? I don't agree with what happened but I am unsure if its something that's acceptable? because usually I see people put a license for their project or re-license something if appropriate but the terms are left as originally written.
Yes, but it's then no longer the MIT license, so the "MIT License" title in the license would have to be removed, and any mention of the project being licensed under the MIT license would have to be changed.
Further, the project is no longer free software, since you've now added a restriction to who can use, modify, and distribute the software.
Finally, all 169 contributors have committed code under the MIT license. Unless they all signed a CLA giving you the right to re-license their code (which I don't think this project did), you'd have to get all 169 contributors' explicit permission to re-license their code, and you'd have to remove and replace the code from anyone who doesn't agree, which is a whole other issue.
Ironic how they're hosting the project on Github, which is owned by Microsoft, and I believe uses Amazon's AWS, two companies named in their ICE list.
I don't see why not. It's not like you're required to use a prewritten license for your software. You're more than free to use whatever license you want, custom or cookie-cutter, so long as the work you're basing your work on doesn't have a license prohibiting you from doing so.
Original PR: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616
Motherboard article: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbynx/major-open-source-project-revokes-access-to-companies-that-work-with-ice?utm_source=mbtwitter
What exactly is unenforceable about it? If Microsoft uses it internally and some internally reports them for it, would the owner of the license not be able to take them to court over it? Or do courts reject this kind of targeted exclusion?
Maybe this would be a good time to review the JSON License, which has caused some companies to reach out to Crockford to arrange alternative licensing arrangements.
I don't have any personal issues with someone choosing to attempt to mitigate any potential damages their own code might do. Blacklisting is an issue, as you can catch innocent people, and not catch worse.
But, a broad, nice and vague statement, tends to be quite useful in legalities.
Here's how the JSON license differs from MIT:
... And that's it.
That just sounds unenforceable, useless and maybe even harmful (because it makes the whole license kinda iffy). What's "good" and "evil" in the eye of the law?
IBM seems to think it's possibly enforceable, and I believe that in practice it would serve much the same function as the medical world's oath to do no harm.