Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Microsoft to buy GitHub in $7.5B all-stock deal
wraith808:
Because if something is checked into a repo that is obviously wrong, it can be construed as a compromise of the account, resulting in the locking of the account.
-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 11:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
So Microsoft (I will not say anything about Windows Me here... or should I?) has decided that you must not check in obviously wrong code into your own repositories?
-Tuxman (January 10, 2022, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
No. It has to do with the effect of that code, and I'm sure the complaints from others- they reversed the damage at the time. He could have contacted them, but in no account of it do I show that he's had any contact.
Tuxman:
It has to do with the effect of that code-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 11:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
I can't remember a rule that says that I can't commit code to my libraries that break my libraries.
and I'm sure the complaints from others-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 11:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
So if other people - including large corporations - decide to take my free code that is licensed under a "no warranty" license and my code breaks their applications, Microsoft is allowed to modify my code?
tomos:
It's possible, according to deozaan's link above, that this was a form of protest against the use of his code by large companies that use, but dont support, open source software. As such, it would seem to be his 'right' to do this (otoh I have no idea what's in the small print).
Me, I dont tend to look at things in terms of 'rights' -- rather in terms of interaction. The developer is probably frustrated -- how do you talk to a Fortune 500 company? You can probably talk all you want, but you get no response. So the big bold gesture is tempting. Big bold gestures tend to cause a backlash. Whether that gets you anywhere is debatable (your call) but I can certainly sympathise with the situation -- and the response (if I'm understanding things properly). Everyone's got to decide for themselves how they approach a situation like this.
RE the lack of financial support; that must could be so demoralising. Also shown up here recently by someone listing the support for their coding (almost zero). [EDIT] I know there are some very generous people here, and also that financially is not the only way to contribute. I dont want to be just negative here...[/EDIT]
wraith808:
It has to do with the effect of that code-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 11:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
I can't remember a rule that says that I can't commit code to my libraries that break my libraries.
and I'm sure the complaints from others-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 11:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
So if other people - including large corporations - decide to take my free code that is licensed under a "no warranty" license and my code breaks their applications, Microsoft is allowed to modify my code?
-Tuxman (January 10, 2022, 12:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
Again, he hasn't shown that he reached out to Microsoft before posting this. If you read the article, they reverted the change in question and locked it down, which is situation that one might expect from a suspected hack. As it stands now:
Judging by the changelog on both faker.js and colors.js, however, it looks like his suspension has already been lifted.
--- End quote ---
Tuxman:
Again, he hasn't shown that he reached out to Microsoft before posting this.-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 01:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
A free software developer should not have to ask anyone, certainly not Microsoft, for permission to destroy his own code. That's pretty much the meaning of free software.
GitHub has some mechanisms to prevent "hacks", including 2FA. So you're only allowed to make your own code unusable if you can prove to Microsoft that you're really you? What kind of crude understanding of free software is that?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version