Microsoft to buy GitHub in $7.5B all-stock deal

[wraith808]

Again, he hasn't shown that he reached out to Microsoft before posting this.

-wraith808 (January 10, 2022, 01:25 PM)

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?

-Tuxman (January 10, 2022, 01:34 PM)

I can see you totally are not reading my posts in good faith. So I'll just say, good day.

[Tuxman]

I can see you totally misread my posts. Good night.

[Deozaan]

He committed code that did not work as expected into his own repositories containing his own free code.

-Tuxman (January 10, 2022, 08:07 AM)

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.

[Tuxman]

It was intentionally and maliciously designed to break other projects that used the code in those public repositories he had stewardship over.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

If you take someone else's code which is under a license that says "no warranty" and you contribute nothing to that code, you have no legal (because of the license) nor moral (because you don't contribute back) right to complain that the person who basically works for you for free stops doing so.

Just because other people decide to use my code, not breaking their code is not my responsibility.

But this guy is an obvious bad actor who intentionally caused harm through his actions.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

Being nice is not a requirement for any free software developer, is it?
If you make a lot of money with stuff I wrote in my free time, expect that I won't like you much. And if you don't give me any reason to be nice towards people not liked very much by me, I probably won't be. Why should I?

(Just in case: I'm not the author.)

And this is not his first foray into intentionally harming others. He has a history of making literal bombs and booby traps.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

So it's that guy's fault that other people download and embed his stuff? Did he make them?
I guess he did not.

When he released his code using an open source license, it became a public good.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

This is a very awful perception of open source and licensing. Thank you for letting me know how you think about the software I posted on DC; that it's not mine anymore because I published the source code. I'll probably make all of my future NANY contributions closed source. Because I am not interested in you voluntarily violating my copyright just because you don't give a fuck about the license which you legally accept by using the code.

Just in case you do care: Most open source licenses explicitly state that the licensed product - usually, source code and/or documentation - is not a public good. I usually use the MIT-0 and/or the CDDL these days. Both basically say that the code is still mine, you are free to modify and distribute it, but if I decide to break it, it's not my problem.

If I wanted my code to be "a public good", I'd put it into the Public Domain. (in Europe, that would still require me to explicitly say so.) But I don't.

That's pretty much the meaning of free software.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

No. It is not.

"Free software" means: Take it, modify it, embed it, contribute your changes (if required by the license and/or if you want to be nice).
"Free software" does not mean: Take it, then complain about my changes.

If you want to be the steward of the version you use, fork it. You are free to do so.
If you want someone else to be the steward of the version you use because you're lazy and/or a greedy corporation, that's not someone else's fault.

I have just checked the license of the faker.js software. It is the MIT license. Here's what you can do with it:

• Modify it.
• Redistribute it.
• Use it commercially and/or at home.
• Embed it in non-free software.

But what you can't do with it:

• Hold the developer liable for any breakages in your software because of the code you downloaded from him.

If you don't want to allow a developer to - intentionally or unintentionally - break your software in a later update of his code, here are your options:

• Fork the working version.
• Pin the working version number.
• Don't use software licensed under a license that allows this.

There is no reasonable reason why the "victims" did not choose any of these three options. They deliberately agreed that the author can do whatever he wants with his part of "their" software.

He is perfectly within his rights to intentionally destroy his own copies of code.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

And they decided to update their copy of his code with a destroyed version (version number "6.6.6" - ha!) without even checking the consequences. Sounds like bad QA (or even no QA at all) on their side to me. Not his fault, is it?

He is not within his rights to destroy public property.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

Free software that is not Public Domain is still a property of the author. The MIT license literally contains a copyright!

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.

-Deozaan (January 10, 2022, 04:54 PM)

Unless the park owners signed a license contracts that lets the person do that. Which is what happened.

[wraith808]

We're dealing with two different things. License for the code use and TOS for hosting.

Let's move the context to a different arena - DonationCoder, or any other Forum.

When you upload items in your posts, you are agreeing to the TOS for the site. For DonationCoder, you retain the rights to whatever you post- whether it is code (compiled or not) or text. That never changes. (Some sites make it so you can't edit or delete your posts, which exists in a gray area).

If you upload something malicious, I'd expect Mouser to take it down- whether it's code, text, etc. If you post something to the wrong area, your post will be altered to move it to the correct area. If you post something in your post that is malicious, your post will be edited to make it not so (as seen with several links in posts that are otherwise fine).

They are not altering his license. They first reverted the change until checking with him to make sure he wasn't hacked (and yes, you can say MFA, but there are ways around that, which have been demonstrated- it's just considerably harder). When he did check back with him, they allowed him in, but he had to change his code hosted on their site to something non malicious, or remove the repo. He chose the former, changing all the code to say What Happened to Aaron Schwartz?

You're conflating license with TOS.

[BGM]

I think what we have here is the difference between a minion of Capitalism (the system with its licenses) and Capitalist's possession of any degree of Charity.  Capitalism excludes the need or place for Charity.  If we have any question of "what is right" it has not place in Capitalism.

I am saying that I think Tuxman is right in his estimations of what the licenses allow.  I agree, that the fellow who borked his own code was within his rights, even if they were malicious - because that's how *that* system works.  It precisely follows the laws and licenses to the letter and that with a material goal in the ultimate end (who gets the money).

However, I also agree with Deozzan in that what that fellow did was not right for him to do - it goes against Charity.  Charity is an entirely different law with a different scope.

So, I think what we have is a conflict between Law and Morals.  According to the law, the fellow was within his rights because that law excludes the reality of Charity and Malice. 

If we discuss the law (and the licenses that protect software, also subject to the law) within its own boundaries, we cannot also discuss Charity.  However, if we discuss Morals, then we can definitely discuss the law.  That is because the moral law (Charity) is higher because it guides the will and not only the material doings.

The thing is that the law doesn't have the welfare of people in mind; that's how it can work, but not be just.

[Tuxman]

Charity is not above the law.

[wraith808]

I think what we have here is the difference between a minion of Capitalism (the system with its licenses) and Capitalist's possession of any degree of Charity.  Capitalism excludes the need or place for Charity.  If we have any question of "what is right" it has not place in Capitalism.

I am saying that I think Tuxman is right in his estimations of what the licenses allow.  I agree, that the fellow who borked his own code was within his rights, even if they were malicious - because that's how *that* system works.  It precisely follows the laws and licenses to the letter and that with a material goal in the ultimate end (who gets the money).

However, I also agree with Deozzan in that what that fellow did was not right for him to do - it goes against Charity.  Charity is an entirely different law with a different scope.

So, I think what we have is a conflict between Law and Morals.  According to the law, the fellow was within his rights because that law excludes the reality of Charity and Malice. 

If we discuss the law (and the licenses that protect software, also subject to the law) within its own boundaries, we cannot also discuss Charity.  However, if we discuss Morals, then we can definitely discuss the law.  That is because the moral law (Charity) is higher because it guides the will and not only the material doings.

The thing is that the law doesn't have the welfare of people in mind; that's how it can work, but not be just.

-BGM (January 13, 2022, 09:17 AM)

This whole thing doesn't take into account the privacy of services and terms of service. Github hosted the code. Doing something with their service where they host the code that he voluntarily put up there doesn't violate the license of the code.

I believe it was Tuxman who even referred to, in the past, the Cloud as Other People's Property. So when you're putting data in the Cloud, you're putting it on Other People's Property, and they still retain the right to do with their property as they will. They can't do anything _with_ what was stored, but they can surely revert it or remove it. Your license doesn't supercede their rights for their property.

[Dormouse]

they can surely revert it or remove it

-wraith808 (January 13, 2022, 11:41 AM)

Remove yes, revert no.

[BGM]

Charity is not above the law.

-Tuxman (January 13, 2022, 09:49 AM)

Charity is not above the law because it's not comparable that way.  Law is there to keep Justice.  But Charity beats Justice (that's where we find Mercy).

[wraith808]

they can surely revert it or remove it

-wraith808 (January 13, 2022, 11:41 AM)

Remove yes, revert no.

-Dormouse (January 13, 2022, 03:27 PM)

Yes to revert, when they don't know if the account is hacked, and it's being reported as such. Once they found out it was not hacked, they let him put non-destructive changes in. (And really, the only no to revert isn't license based- it's ethics based. They control the backups. The files have zero to do with license.)