He committed code that did not work as expected into his own repositories containing his own free code.
-Tuxman
This is dishonest. The code worked exactly as expected. It was intentionally and maliciously designed to break other projects that used the code in those public repositories he had stewardship over.
I don't understand why you are so insistent on defending this guy. Pick a better martyr for your cause. I'm sure there are plenty of other repositories or accounts that have been suspended or removed for more defensible reasons. But this guy is an obvious bad actor who intentionally caused harm through his actions. And this is not his first foray into intentionally harming others. He has
a history of making literal bombs and booby traps.
When he released his code using an open source license, it became a public good. That's pretty much
the meaning of free software. He is perfectly within his rights to intentionally destroy his own copies of code. He is not within his rights to destroy public property. Which is why his local repositories can contain whatever changes he wishes to commit. But the repositories hosted on GitHub were GitHub's copy of the code, which he had permission to push changes to under the assumption and condition (those pesky ToS!) that he remain a good steward over it. Public repositories hosted by 3rd parties that thousands of others use do not have an obligation to host or accept his malicious code, so they reverted his malicious changes and denied him access to their copies of the repositories.
A person who creates a statue and freely donates it to be displayed in a public park does not have the right to destroy the statue later if he becomes angry that people aren't paying him money for it.
Show Posts
