Lerna relicences to protest ICE(github.com)
github.com
Lerna relicences to protest ICE
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616
161 comments
MIT allows for the sublicensing to a more restrictive license. I have no idea how this would play out in court, but it looks like this is allowed. Pretty scummy move though for people who don't agree with this maintainers politics, and very concerning for ANY company who does anything that the maintainers could potentially disagree with. I'd avoid this project now, or use an older MIT-only commit.
EDIT: Thought about this on the way into work. The MIT license is only applied to code contributions once the code is "at rest" after merge. Permission is then granted for anyone "obtaining a copy" of the software. The repo maintainers claim that they are obtaining a copy of the software, but it looks like this isn't a copy, it's the original. I wonder if the contributors really do have legal recourse.
EDIT: Thought about this on the way into work. The MIT license is only applied to code contributions once the code is "at rest" after merge. Permission is then granted for anyone "obtaining a copy" of the software. The repo maintainers claim that they are obtaining a copy of the software, but it looks like this isn't a copy, it's the original. I wonder if the contributors really do have legal recourse.
Is it politics when human rights are violated? I don't think it's "politics" to oppose children separated from their parents.
> Is it politics when human rights are violated?
Absolutely. The most important politics.
Of course, using “politics” as a dismissal of importance is only a technique to protect the political status quo from a challenge one cannot otherwise defend against.
Absolutely. The most important politics.
Of course, using “politics” as a dismissal of importance is only a technique to protect the political status quo from a challenge one cannot otherwise defend against.
I think there's a legitimate desire in wanting to avoid "politics". It's a more specific instance of avoiding the trap described by 'perfect is the enemy of good'. Here's a good Tumblr post to which I linked earlier today in a similar HN thread:
- [The Grey Tribe — Activism, Accessibility, Setting Good...](https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/post/175038067648/activism...)
- [The Grey Tribe — Activism, Accessibility, Setting Good...](https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/post/175038067648/activism...)
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing (or something), right? So some politics are a pinch or a slap but others are a hammer to the head. What's wrong with taking a stance about, for example, children in cages? This isn't just a protest over whether trickle down works or if taxes are too high/low.
Linkedin doesn't put children in cages, to the best of my knowledge. (I just randomly chose one company from the list).
This list is random. There are companies which do business with federal government, some of them with ICE and law enforcement agencies. I'm paying federal income tax in the US and as every other citizen or LPR or even H1B visa holder fund ICE. I'm much more complicit in "putting children in cages" than Linkedin.
Complying with the law by paying taxes is less wrong than making a conscious choice to work for a company that provides services to ICE. You've been 'coerced' in to paying for ICE. LinkedIn haven't been coerced in to working with them.
You are saying that a company(!) can make a conscious(!) choice. That’s... well, a little bit too much.
"<company name>" is pretty much always a shorthand for "the people who choose to work for <company name>".
Next time you read something and think "The literal interpretation of this is ridiculous!", try to remember the Principle of Charity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Next time you read something and think "The literal interpretation of this is ridiculous!", try to remember the Principle of Charity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
okay. so people who are citizens of the country <country name> are coerced to pay taxes and can not escape, but people who work for <company name> are not coerced to do their jobs. how so?
if you want to make an argument about consciousness then i can tell you that i absolutely consciously chose US as a country to live in, at the age of 41.
if you want to make an argument about consciousness then i can tell you that i absolutely consciously chose US as a country to live in, at the age of 41.
I fully support peoples' efforts to protest the current US administration, and any other administration.
I don't support usurping other people's speech to push protests. Copyleft is a wonderful thing, but we have to treat it with respect and play by the rules, else we risk diluting its legal potency.
If this was a single maintainer, or a project that got the rest of its developers to agree on the sublicense, then that would be great. However, this seems like a rogue repo maintainer (or a few of them) pushing a sublicense without their contributors agreeing. Sounds like a great way to turn a few of its contributors against them, but also sounds like a great way to violate their copyright.
I don't support usurping other people's speech to push protests. Copyleft is a wonderful thing, but we have to treat it with respect and play by the rules, else we risk diluting its legal potency.
If this was a single maintainer, or a project that got the rest of its developers to agree on the sublicense, then that would be great. However, this seems like a rogue repo maintainer (or a few of them) pushing a sublicense without their contributors agreeing. Sounds like a great way to turn a few of its contributors against them, but also sounds like a great way to violate their copyright.
CBP and ICE aren’t the same organization (and that’s even before getting into the distinction between HSI and ERO).
A explanation for why carving out exceptions for evil people in open source licenses ultimately harms the ecosystem:
- http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106
- https://www.fsf.org/patrons/licensing/20050211.html
- http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106
- https://www.fsf.org/patrons/licensing/20050211.html
I don’t think there is a reasonable counter argument. It’s not a free license, for the same reason the JSON license isn’t.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON
It's not an Open Source license either, violating criteria 5 and 6 of the definition. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
It's still the MIT license for other people though. Licenses are a contract between a licensor and and a licensee. OSS requires the Licensor to provides the license in a non-discriminating way, and some licenses, like the GPL, explicitly enforce this. But the MIT license itself has no such provision. You could license a project with MIT to user A, and not to user B.
This is all just rule-bending though. I'm very conflicted on this issue. On one part, I agree with the sentiment that this is against the spirit of open source. On the other hand, I do like to see the software community taking a political stance, and using action in an attempt to enact change, on such issues.
This is all just rule-bending though. I'm very conflicted on this issue. On one part, I agree with the sentiment that this is against the spirit of open source. On the other hand, I do like to see the software community taking a political stance, and using action in an attempt to enact change, on such issues.
> It's still the MIT license for other people though.
But doesn't that imply that other people could redistribute to any of the companies on the list? So it's either not MIT, or it's pointless.
But doesn't that imply that other people could redistribute to any of the companies on the list? So it's either not MIT, or it's pointless.
"MIT license for other people" is not the MIT license. It's no longer Open Source.
Remember when people were apprehensive about using React because Facebook might weaponize your usage of it? This project is explicitly stating it can: you might not be on this list today, but there's nothing preventing you from being on it tomorrow. So do you want to commit to integrating it to your stack?
While I'm not against their stance at all (at the end of the day, they've gotta do what is going to help them sleep at night and if it is barring the usage of their software, so be it), I really worry about the possibility of this becoming prevalent. What happens if libraries start restricting usage if you support the work of ACLU or Planned Parenthood or any other number of things? Now, I may be able to work with a specific library because I check the right boxes. But what if a collaborator can't because they'd violate it? This just feels like a slippery slope leading to a net negative for everyone
While I'm not against their stance at all (at the end of the day, they've gotta do what is going to help them sleep at night and if it is barring the usage of their software, so be it), I really worry about the possibility of this becoming prevalent. What happens if libraries start restricting usage if you support the work of ACLU or Planned Parenthood or any other number of things? Now, I may be able to work with a specific library because I check the right boxes. But what if a collaborator can't because they'd violate it? This just feels like a slippery slope leading to a net negative for everyone
Indeed. I'll stick with unadulterated Open Source Definition licenses. I know those; I know how to integrate; I know how to comply. They're known entities, and licensing is well aware how and what they are used for.
This tirefire of a license is untested and a "Social Justice of the Week". Frankly, the further I am away from the likes of these, the better.
I also greatly appreciate what Stallman said, here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
" There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. " - RMS
This tirefire of a license is untested and a "Social Justice of the Week". Frankly, the further I am away from the likes of these, the better.
I also greatly appreciate what Stallman said, here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
" There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. " - RMS
The author of that change follows the same pattern in nearly every project found on their Github account, and many that they contribute to: MIT licenses with added prohibitions targeting specific groups. Disturbing and toxic to say the least.
As usual, this is only valid if every contributor has agreed to the relicensing. Otherwise the project maintainers are infringing the copyright of the contributors by violating the license granted to them by each contributor. I see this all too frequently. It's scary the legal recourse people open themselves up to by not understanding licensing.
That aside, I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. I imagine there are others like me who would like to better understand the situation.
That aside, I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. I imagine there are others like me who would like to better understand the situation.
Per my understanding, unless other wise stated, relicensing is still pretty much a fork; versions up to the relicense are still distributable under the old license. In addition, MIT permits forking under a new license.
If you can just do that, can I just be a downstream user, and as long as I have a local license that says, "This is a rolling license fork of lerna" then I can redistribute to said companies?
> I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given.
Here's a few sources:
Microsoft employees call on company to cancel contract with ICE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-em...
Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22...
Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietl...
15 Organizations Doing Business With ICE — and How Much They’re Making: http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-w...
If you were inclined to draw a very unfavorable comparison, many otherwise neutral companies did business with Nazi Germany. IBM was contracted to help with the German census, which then lead directly to roundups of Jews and the Holocaust: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers...
Here's a few sources:
Microsoft employees call on company to cancel contract with ICE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-em...
Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22...
Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietl...
15 Organizations Doing Business With ICE — and How Much They’re Making: http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-w...
If you were inclined to draw a very unfavorable comparison, many otherwise neutral companies did business with Nazi Germany. IBM was contracted to help with the German census, which then lead directly to roundups of Jews and the Holocaust: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers...
Thanks for taking the time to collate these for me. Very much appreciated.
The MIT license has no restriction on applying additional restrictions, without the permission of the contributors. For example, MIT licensed software can be used in proprietary software.
It's not a MIT issue, it's a copyright issue.
They're distributing the original contributions under the new license without honouring the terms of the original license.
The software isn't now MIT+additional terms, it's MIT and MIT+additional terms. Meaning they need to continue to honour the MIT license for all exisiting contributions, just the same way as we need to when we use MIT licensed software. Namely, printing the license as is, unaltered.
They are free to do that then say that future contributions are licensed according to the new license, but the conditions of the contributors' license can't be ignored.
They're distributing the original contributions under the new license without honouring the terms of the original license.
The software isn't now MIT+additional terms, it's MIT and MIT+additional terms. Meaning they need to continue to honour the MIT license for all exisiting contributions, just the same way as we need to when we use MIT licensed software. Namely, printing the license as is, unaltered.
They are free to do that then say that future contributions are licensed according to the new license, but the conditions of the contributors' license can't be ignored.
I think this is wrong, because the original contributions are licensed under MIT.
So changing the license to MIT + Clauses is essentially a fork. Since the original work is licensed under MIT, licencing derivative work under a different license is permissible, no?
So changing the license to MIT + Clauses is essentially a fork. Since the original work is licensed under MIT, licencing derivative work under a different license is permissible, no?
No. They are (well, briefly were) distributing it under new terms, which meet all their obligations under the plain MIT terms. You fundamentally misunderstand how licensing of copyrighted work works. Read the text of the MIT license and observe how the new terms don't contradict them. This is specifically the purpose of the MIT license - to allow incorporation into more restrictively licensed works.
They don't own copyright to the code, its respective authors do, but they have a license to it (MIT) and are free to distribute and use the code as long as they meet the requirements the license puts on them. Which they do.
That this whole shitstorm was monumentally stupid go-proprietary-in-a-fit-of-zeal is another thing.
They don't own copyright to the code, its respective authors do, but they have a license to it (MIT) and are free to distribute and use the code as long as they meet the requirements the license puts on them. Which they do.
That this whole shitstorm was monumentally stupid go-proprietary-in-a-fit-of-zeal is another thing.
> You fundamentally misunderstand how licensing of copyrighted work works.
That's quite the accusation.
I'm not going to repeat myself further. I suggest you read my existing comments regarding this matter, in particular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17869267
That's quite the accusation.
I'm not going to repeat myself further. I suggest you read my existing comments regarding this matter, in particular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17869267
If Lerna has a contributor license agreement, then it isn't a problem. A CLA usually has a clause that you give up your copyright.
They're honouring the terms of the original license. The terms of the original license says they're allowed to redistribute however they wish ("including without limitation the rights to [...] sublicense"). They are redistributing with additional restrictions and sublicensing. It's just as valid as grabbing MIT-licensed software making some changes, and licensing those changes under the GPL. Now you can distribute a whole combined work, your changes+the original, under the GPL.
Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
I'm not sure I can be any more explicit than my previous comment, but I'll try.
You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now."
That's entirely incorrect. You cannot ever ignore the terms of a license, just because you want to use another license. You must under all circumstances, honour the terms of the license for which you were granted the right to reproduce someone-else's work.
MIT is compatible with GPL. In the sense that it's possible to honour both the terms of the MIT and the GPL simultaneously. You must however, still honour the MIT license in its entirety i.e. Display the MIT license notice in its entirety; it's right there in the license text.
Any new project isn't GPL licensed, it's GPL and MIT licensed. People need to understand this. If I grab someone's code off Github that's supposedly GPL, but it includes MIT code; I can't just chose to honour the GPL and ignore the MIT. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
> But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
Github lists 169 contributors, not three. We're talking about contributors, not maintainers i.e. We're interested in the authors of the copyrighted works, not some open source nomenclature that has no legal bearing.
You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now."
That's entirely incorrect. You cannot ever ignore the terms of a license, just because you want to use another license. You must under all circumstances, honour the terms of the license for which you were granted the right to reproduce someone-else's work.
MIT is compatible with GPL. In the sense that it's possible to honour both the terms of the MIT and the GPL simultaneously. You must however, still honour the MIT license in its entirety i.e. Display the MIT license notice in its entirety; it's right there in the license text.
Any new project isn't GPL licensed, it's GPL and MIT licensed. People need to understand this. If I grab someone's code off Github that's supposedly GPL, but it includes MIT code; I can't just chose to honour the GPL and ignore the MIT. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
> But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
Github lists 169 contributors, not three. We're talking about contributors, not maintainers i.e. We're interested in the authors of the copyrighted works, not some open source nomenclature that has no legal bearing.
> You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now."
Yes you can, that's sublicensing, which the MIT license allows. It's also why you can include MIT-licensed code in non-free applications. The MIT license does not forbid any of this. And you're not ignoring it when you say the whole work is now covered by the terms of the GPL as the text of the GPL says; you're actually exercising a right granted by the MIT license. I can totally grab MIT-licensed code and redistribute it to you under non-MIT terms[1]. I don't have any obligation to give you any freedom nor do I have an obligation to make sure you can impose GPL-incompatible restrictions on it. I can sublicense as I wish.
You're right that you still have to display the MIT license but that's not really the point. It's a very minor restriction that is not relevant to the point of this discussion. By licensing under the MIT license, the original contributors to Lerna agreed to let their code have additional restrictions imposed upon it such as denying licensing to certain companies. Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
--
[1] Although in this day and age of widespread internet distribution, you could just go and grab the original from the original distributor, which may be enough for you if I haven't modified it significantly.
Yes you can, that's sublicensing, which the MIT license allows. It's also why you can include MIT-licensed code in non-free applications. The MIT license does not forbid any of this. And you're not ignoring it when you say the whole work is now covered by the terms of the GPL as the text of the GPL says; you're actually exercising a right granted by the MIT license. I can totally grab MIT-licensed code and redistribute it to you under non-MIT terms[1]. I don't have any obligation to give you any freedom nor do I have an obligation to make sure you can impose GPL-incompatible restrictions on it. I can sublicense as I wish.
You're right that you still have to display the MIT license but that's not really the point. It's a very minor restriction that is not relevant to the point of this discussion. By licensing under the MIT license, the original contributors to Lerna agreed to let their code have additional restrictions imposed upon it such as denying licensing to certain companies. Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
--
[1] Although in this day and age of widespread internet distribution, you could just go and grab the original from the original distributor, which may be enough for you if I haven't modified it significantly.
> Yes you can, that's sublicensing.
No, that's copyright infringement.
What you've just described is actually referred to as relicensing i.e. removing the old license, and replacing it, this is not the same as sublicensing. Without expressly having been given permission to do so, this is copyright infringement.
Sublicensing is when you, as a licensee, in accordance with your license, provide a license to another party. The MIT permits this as long as you adhere to the MIT license's conditions, namely:
> You're right that you still have to display the MIT license
You've acknowledged my point here.
Not only do "they" need to display the MIT license, so do sub-licensees, and their sub-licensees, and so forth, in aeternum.
> but that's not really the point.
That's entirely the point.
As I've said before, this is being bound by the terms of the MIT license and the GPL, not simply the GPL.
With respect to Lerna, we have a near parallel situation. Lerna can take MIT licensed software from their contributors, and sublicense a derivative of this software with an attached MIT+additional terms license. However, Lerna must continue to to adhere to the conditions of the MIT license i.e. Display the MIT license in full. As in the GPL situation, the software is now bound by multiple licenses, not simply MIT+additional terms, but rather MIT and MIT+additional terms.
> Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
I will concede this is a fair point, in the sense that their new license incorporates most the text of the original MIT license. Given the surrounding context whereby additional restrictions are added, and the fact that they're collectively represented as the one license, I don't know how that would play out in court.
Nonetheless, if we're being pedantic:
Granted, that's being super pedantic and I doubt that alone would be reasonable basis for any sensible court awarding restitution.
Nonetheless, my entire point is that the Lerna team have claimed in that Github issue that they've relicensed the project under MIT+additional terms. They can't do this, they can only sublicense contributions of contributors - the MIT does not allow relicensing.
They can absolutely relicense their own contributions; as the copyright holder they inherently have that right to do so. However, with respect to contributor's works, they can only sublicense, as contributors have expressly permitted this, as long as sublicensees also adhere to the conditions set forth in the MIT license. So the contributor's portions, and therefore Lerna as a whole, are at best MIT and MIT+additional terms, not simply the latter.
If you're suggesting that:
Nonetheless, as the MIT license makes no mention of relicensing, I would suggest that proclaiming you've relicensed is not particularly wise; which is precisely what the Lerna team are proclaiming (see their last comment before locking the issue). They have in fact sublicensed.
No, that's copyright infringement.
What you've just described is actually referred to as relicensing i.e. removing the old license, and replacing it, this is not the same as sublicensing. Without expressly having been given permission to do so, this is copyright infringement.
Sublicensing is when you, as a licensee, in accordance with your license, provide a license to another party. The MIT permits this as long as you adhere to the MIT license's conditions, namely:
[...] subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> You're right that you still have to display the MIT license
You've acknowledged my point here.
Not only do "they" need to display the MIT license, so do sub-licensees, and their sub-licensees, and so forth, in aeternum.
> but that's not really the point.
That's entirely the point.
As I've said before, this is being bound by the terms of the MIT license and the GPL, not simply the GPL.
With respect to Lerna, we have a near parallel situation. Lerna can take MIT licensed software from their contributors, and sublicense a derivative of this software with an attached MIT+additional terms license. However, Lerna must continue to to adhere to the conditions of the MIT license i.e. Display the MIT license in full. As in the GPL situation, the software is now bound by multiple licenses, not simply MIT+additional terms, but rather MIT and MIT+additional terms.
> Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
I will concede this is a fair point, in the sense that their new license incorporates most the text of the original MIT license. Given the surrounding context whereby additional restrictions are added, and the fact that they're collectively represented as the one license, I don't know how that would play out in court.
Nonetheless, if we're being pedantic:
- Copyright (c) 2015-2017 Sebastian McKenzie <[email protected]>
+ Copyright (c) 2015-present Lerna Contributors
Granted, that's being super pedantic and I doubt that alone would be reasonable basis for any sensible court awarding restitution.
Nonetheless, my entire point is that the Lerna team have claimed in that Github issue that they've relicensed the project under MIT+additional terms. They can't do this, they can only sublicense contributions of contributors - the MIT does not allow relicensing.
They can absolutely relicense their own contributions; as the copyright holder they inherently have that right to do so. However, with respect to contributor's works, they can only sublicense, as contributors have expressly permitted this, as long as sublicensees also adhere to the conditions set forth in the MIT license. So the contributor's portions, and therefore Lerna as a whole, are at best MIT and MIT+additional terms, not simply the latter.
If you're suggesting that:
MIT *and* MIT+additional terms == MIT+additional terms
Nonetheless, as the MIT license makes no mention of relicensing, I would suggest that proclaiming you've relicensed is not particularly wise; which is precisely what the Lerna team are proclaiming (see their last comment before locking the issue). They have in fact sublicensed.
This kind of thing is old hat. It comes up from time to time. rms has written about it a couple of times.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
His basic argument is that it would achieve nothing because such restrictions based on copyright law are likely unenforcible. It just makes the software pointlessly non-free.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
His basic argument is that it would achieve nothing because such restrictions based on copyright law are likely unenforcible. It just makes the software pointlessly non-free.
I use BlueprintJS a lot. And about a year into use I realised that "Palantir" is apparently a company people don't like. All I could think about is how this might become a nuisance if a colleague or customer decides they're going to be political about it.
These moves are frustrating. I just want to make neat stuff. I don't want to get involved in the politics of a country I have no interest in.
These moves are frustrating. I just want to make neat stuff. I don't want to get involved in the politics of a country I have no interest in.
Trying to keep politics out of things isn't apolitical, it's the politics of status quo.
aeorgnoieang(1)
Well the sad thing about this is that Palantir is actually doing some very good things with Lerna, Babel and Yarn and they tried to explain that...
...BUT SOME PEOPLE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND AND JUST REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ANY REASON.
Do you want to hear what Palantir is ACTUALLY doing using these tools? Here you go:
"[...]We appreciate your concerns based on the article you linked to. We would like to clarify that Palantir's contracts are with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the ICE directorate responsible for investigating serious transnational criminal activity such as human trafficking, child exploitation, and counter-terrorism as opposed to the activities theorized in the article. We're happy to discuss your concerns in person if you're interested, please get in touch."
https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/2870
TL;DR: Palantir is helping the HSI unit within ICE to FIGHT CHILD ABUSE, STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND STOP TERRORISM.
Now can anyone explain to me what is so terribly wrong and evil about THAT? Anyone???
...BUT SOME PEOPLE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND AND JUST REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ANY REASON.
Do you want to hear what Palantir is ACTUALLY doing using these tools? Here you go:
"[...]We appreciate your concerns based on the article you linked to. We would like to clarify that Palantir's contracts are with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the ICE directorate responsible for investigating serious transnational criminal activity such as human trafficking, child exploitation, and counter-terrorism as opposed to the activities theorized in the article. We're happy to discuss your concerns in person if you're interested, please get in touch."
https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/2870
TL;DR: Palantir is helping the HSI unit within ICE to FIGHT CHILD ABUSE, STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND STOP TERRORISM.
Now can anyone explain to me what is so terribly wrong and evil about THAT? Anyone???
Finally somebody else that had this thought too. Those all sounded to me like really good things to do. Child abuse and human trafficking are heinously evil. If lerna thinks they are lying, they should say that instead of misrepresenting the truth to make a political point.
This is an amazing thing to do, but I have one concern.
My straight reading of the new license file makes me that, assuming I am not related to any of the entities listed (or their subsidiaries), then the license I am bound by is the license titled "MIT License".
I bring that up, because the MIT License says I need to preserve only the copyright notice (the first line of the file, as per https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf), and "this permission notice". I could see someone arguing that "this permission notice" begins where it says "MIT License".
The annoying thing is, I don't have an explicit definition for "permission notice" (for example, I searched on https://dictionary.findlaw.com but didn't find anything). I could devils-advocate argue that the 'permission notice' starts where it says "MIT License".
Taking that argument, if I _really_ wanted to get this to one of the entities listed, I would make a new distribution of the software, consisting of just the copyright statement and MIT License, which I would then distribute to the entity.
Yeah, it's definitely a reach, I'm just bringing this up to say that craft people who wanted to may find an opening to exploit here, so some fine-tuning may be warranted!
P.S. I'm also a little concerned about replacing "2015-2017" with "2015-present", partially because 'present' isn't a year, and partially because, when development stops (as all things in time eventually become dormant), this could be viewed (especially when looked at in isolation) as an attempt at overreach.
My straight reading of the new license file makes me that, assuming I am not related to any of the entities listed (or their subsidiaries), then the license I am bound by is the license titled "MIT License".
I bring that up, because the MIT License says I need to preserve only the copyright notice (the first line of the file, as per https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf), and "this permission notice". I could see someone arguing that "this permission notice" begins where it says "MIT License".
The annoying thing is, I don't have an explicit definition for "permission notice" (for example, I searched on https://dictionary.findlaw.com but didn't find anything). I could devils-advocate argue that the 'permission notice' starts where it says "MIT License".
Taking that argument, if I _really_ wanted to get this to one of the entities listed, I would make a new distribution of the software, consisting of just the copyright statement and MIT License, which I would then distribute to the entity.
Yeah, it's definitely a reach, I'm just bringing this up to say that craft people who wanted to may find an opening to exploit here, so some fine-tuning may be warranted!
P.S. I'm also a little concerned about replacing "2015-2017" with "2015-present", partially because 'present' isn't a year, and partially because, when development stops (as all things in time eventually become dormant), this could be viewed (especially when looked at in isolation) as an attempt at overreach.
This is a ridiculous thing to put in a software license and a completely toxic subject in general.
Yea, these people have no culture of a political protest. Kids... Take your political concerns to your congressman / senator, leave your political views outside the door of your office. Anyways, they will learn
Can't wait for the day VC gets into spines
> completely toxic subject
I agree about "completely toxic". But it's the policy that's completely toxic, not the subject. I mean, separating babies from their parents? That is just fucking insane.
I agree about "completely toxic". But it's the policy that's completely toxic, not the subject. I mean, separating babies from their parents? That is just fucking insane.
Yes, when you phrase something without context it's easy to make it sound insane.
When you include the context where they need to verify that it's not human trafficking and that children are separated from their parents every day when the parents are arrested for any other crime, it's not quite as insane.
When you include the context where they need to verify that it's not human trafficking and that children are separated from their parents every day when the parents are arrested for any other crime, it's not quite as insane.
I believe you are the one lacking context. I'll assume your are not being intentionally malicious and are just naive.
Abuse is almost certainly occurs in the presence of power structures with severe disparity. Children are being placed in the custody of people who lack appropriate training, background checks and supervision. Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents. These are sufficient conditions for children to be mistreated; I can't bear to think of what happens when the people who run these systems choose to be actively malicious. These conditions are not only present in these "detention centers" (a thinly disguised euphemism for prisons), but also in places like poorly run orphanages and even some religious institutions, to name a few.
I am disgusted by the lack of empathy when discussions such as this one come up. I could care less by your stance on immigration policy; forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior.
- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893... - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/us/undocumented-migrant-child... - https://sputniknews.com/us/201806211065644106-US-Detention-C...
Abuse is almost certainly occurs in the presence of power structures with severe disparity. Children are being placed in the custody of people who lack appropriate training, background checks and supervision. Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents. These are sufficient conditions for children to be mistreated; I can't bear to think of what happens when the people who run these systems choose to be actively malicious. These conditions are not only present in these "detention centers" (a thinly disguised euphemism for prisons), but also in places like poorly run orphanages and even some religious institutions, to name a few.
I am disgusted by the lack of empathy when discussions such as this one come up. I could care less by your stance on immigration policy; forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior.
- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893... - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/us/undocumented-migrant-child... - https://sputniknews.com/us/201806211065644106-US-Detention-C...
Is there human trafficking going on on the border or not? If yes, then the detention policy and separating kids from their handlers upon ingest is happening for legitimate reasons.
> forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior
HOW that detention is being executed is definitely worth debating and certainly how individuals are treated can verge into tragic territory. Your disagreement extends into the WHY, possibly for noble political reasons, but which turns a blind eye to a serious humanitarian crisis.
> I am disgusted by the lack of empathy ...
This is where I got snarky, and deleted what I was going to say. I'll just note that south of the US borders, there is a LOT of human suffering to be disgusted about caused by failed approaches to government there.
> forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior
HOW that detention is being executed is definitely worth debating and certainly how individuals are treated can verge into tragic territory. Your disagreement extends into the WHY, possibly for noble political reasons, but which turns a blind eye to a serious humanitarian crisis.
> I am disgusted by the lack of empathy ...
This is where I got snarky, and deleted what I was going to say. I'll just note that south of the US borders, there is a LOT of human suffering to be disgusted about caused by failed approaches to government there.
>Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents
Apparently you have never heard of what happens to every child initially separated from parents arrested for a felony. I suggest you look into the foster system in the US to see the horrors.
The treatment at the children sucks, but it has nothing to do with Trump. It's entirely based on children in the US receiving shitty treatment under 'the system' in the US.
Apparently you have never heard of what happens to every child initially separated from parents arrested for a felony. I suggest you look into the foster system in the US to see the horrors.
The treatment at the children sucks, but it has nothing to do with Trump. It's entirely based on children in the US receiving shitty treatment under 'the system' in the US.
That sounds plausible. Except that this is happening on a much larger scale than your examples. And they're keeping families separated for months.
Edit: And what really freaks me about this is what's likely over the next few decades. As global climate change disrupts marginal economies, and migration volumes increase hugely. We're basically looking at concentration camps.
Edit: Some prisons now allow mothers to keep their children.
Edit: And what really freaks me about this is what's likely over the next few decades. As global climate change disrupts marginal economies, and migration volumes increase hugely. We're basically looking at concentration camps.
Edit: Some prisons now allow mothers to keep their children.
This is fundamentally anti-free software and completely against the point of the MIT License.
If you want control over your code, you should use your powers of copyright more carefully.
EDIT: In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? What prevents a particular individual AT Microsoft from downloading and using your code? And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
There are all sorts of questions and contradictions. I don't think this works.
If you want control over your code, you should use your powers of copyright more carefully.
EDIT: In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? What prevents a particular individual AT Microsoft from downloading and using your code? And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
There are all sorts of questions and contradictions. I don't think this works.
> In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft?
IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you to include the restriction in the copy you give to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
0: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you to include the restriction in the copy you give to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
0: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
IANAL either. But...
> Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you.
An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft.
Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license.
> I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.
> Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you.
An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft.
Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license.
> I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.
> In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft?
Microsoft not wanting to wade into that mess.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865360
> And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
The same enforcement mechanisms they were using before.
Microsoft not wanting to wade into that mess.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865360
> And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
The same enforcement mechanisms they were using before.
> The same enforcement mechanisms they were using before.
When you publish an MIT-licensed piece of code, you're basically saying "I don't really care about enforcement. Please be nice and leave the license information here."
There's practically no good way to enforce an MIT license, if only because you've given all rights to the product away already.
-----------
But by saying "I don't want Microsoft to use this product", now you actually are saying you care somewhat about how your product is used. Which now begs the question: how do you enforce that?
GNU has lawyers who protect their copyleft license, and are willing to take you to court on the issue for example.
When you publish an MIT-licensed piece of code, you're basically saying "I don't really care about enforcement. Please be nice and leave the license information here."
There's practically no good way to enforce an MIT license, if only because you've given all rights to the product away already.
-----------
But by saying "I don't want Microsoft to use this product", now you actually are saying you care somewhat about how your product is used. Which now begs the question: how do you enforce that?
GNU has lawyers who protect their copyleft license, and are willing to take you to court on the issue for example.
> There's practically no good way to enforce an MIT license, if only because you've given all rights to the product away already.
This is 100% untrue, making the rest of your comment meaningless and useless.
This is 100% untrue, making the rest of your comment meaningless and useless.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly:
- Lerna is no longer free software (per the FSF's definitions) or open source software (per the OSI's definitions), so calling it "open source" is inaccurate
- Lerna is effectively illegal to host on GitHub, since its license terms prevent GitHub's parent company (Microsoft) from being able to legally distribute it in source form
- Lerna probably can't relicense anyway without explicit consent from all contributors, since there was no CLA establishing copyright assignment
- Lerna is no longer free software (per the FSF's definitions) or open source software (per the OSI's definitions), so calling it "open source" is inaccurate
- Lerna is effectively illegal to host on GitHub, since its license terms prevent GitHub's parent company (Microsoft) from being able to legally distribute it in source form
- Lerna probably can't relicense anyway without explicit consent from all contributors, since there was no CLA establishing copyright assignment
Yeah, I can’t see how Github can host Lerna with this license, since Github is clearly “any
subsidiary thereof”.
That last bit is not true. MIT allows sublicensing.
This is about as effective as ripping an arm off your shirt and throwing it in the vicinity of an ICE agent.
The result of that effort will be a day fielding questions from everyone but ICE about what the heck is wrong with your shirt.
The result of that effort will be a day fielding questions from everyone but ICE about what the heck is wrong with your shirt.
The main goal is less to hurt the companies that are supporting ICE by not allowing them to use an open source project, but actually bring a lot more awareness that these companies DO IN FACT support ICE. I had no idea Palantir was working on the technology to help deport people
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/palantir-provides-the-en...
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/palantir-provides-the-en...
I'm honestly glad you are now aware of that fact.
Now that we are both aware, let's talk about their license. Is it now a non-free license? How does it affect their current non-Palantir user base? Is it enforceable? Was it meant to be enforceable? Are there ways in which a license written by people who aren't themselves lawyers can come back to bite them?
This entire digression goes away completely if they put the relevant information nearly anywhere else. Their front page, README.md, change log, etc. Hell, they could even put it as a "did you know" comment in the body of the code.
They could do any or all of them and get just as much or more notoriety as they did by ruining their open source/free software compatible license.
Now that we are both aware, let's talk about their license. Is it now a non-free license? How does it affect their current non-Palantir user base? Is it enforceable? Was it meant to be enforceable? Are there ways in which a license written by people who aren't themselves lawyers can come back to bite them?
This entire digression goes away completely if they put the relevant information nearly anywhere else. Their front page, README.md, change log, etc. Hell, they could even put it as a "did you know" comment in the body of the code.
They could do any or all of them and get just as much or more notoriety as they did by ruining their open source/free software compatible license.
part that gives me pause, even though I'm 100% okay with being against the current policy of separation: what next? Totally silly, but what if it comes out that some food company is engaging in behavior that is deemed immoral. Lerna then tacks that onto the next revision of itself. But I, myself, really like food company's product and don't feel the controversy is warranted. Then what?
I understand the motivation with wanting to protest in the best way you can, but I think in this case, it is going to do more harm than good.
I understand the motivation with wanting to protest in the best way you can, but I think in this case, it is going to do more harm than good.
My point is that the license is the absolute worst place to put anything-- including a protest-- because licensing issues are way outside the expertise of most programmers.
For example, if they put the same information in a comment in the code, then whatever flame war might ensue would at least be fully on the social implications of it. Nobody will worry about the comment accidentally getting interpreted improperly by various JS engines. Nobody will talk about how the big company they work for will not touch code that has certain comments because the comment department advised them those comments are radioactive. Troglodytes won't pop up to poorly recite what they think they read on the wall about comments and maximizing freedom.
All of that and more will happen when you write anything non-standard in a license for a FLOSS project. It's a dog-whistle to every programmer out there who has dreamed of pretending to be a lawyer.
I offer into evidence the ratio of ICE-related posts to licensing-desiderata-related posts in this thread.
If you've really got so much energy to waste that your thinking about writing your own custom license blurb, just go reverse-engineer a baseband OS or something.
For example, if they put the same information in a comment in the code, then whatever flame war might ensue would at least be fully on the social implications of it. Nobody will worry about the comment accidentally getting interpreted improperly by various JS engines. Nobody will talk about how the big company they work for will not touch code that has certain comments because the comment department advised them those comments are radioactive. Troglodytes won't pop up to poorly recite what they think they read on the wall about comments and maximizing freedom.
All of that and more will happen when you write anything non-standard in a license for a FLOSS project. It's a dog-whistle to every programmer out there who has dreamed of pretending to be a lawyer.
I offer into evidence the ratio of ICE-related posts to licensing-desiderata-related posts in this thread.
If you've really got so much energy to waste that your thinking about writing your own custom license blurb, just go reverse-engineer a baseband OS or something.
And now apparently the license has been reverted to MIT:
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1633
Someone had very decent aims-- protesting ICE-- and executed it in the wrong scope-- a license change.
If you read the comments on that issue you'll see at least one person takes that as a good lesson for avoiding the very decent aims in open source projects.
That is unfortunate, and IMO a good reason to avoid mucking around with licenses at all.
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1633
Someone had very decent aims-- protesting ICE-- and executed it in the wrong scope-- a license change.
If you read the comments on that issue you'll see at least one person takes that as a good lesson for avoiding the very decent aims in open source projects.
That is unfortunate, and IMO a good reason to avoid mucking around with licenses at all.
And what exactly wrong with supporting ICE?
How can they change the license without getting the approval of everyone who contributed code? It doesn't look like they required contributors to sign CLAs.
MIT allows sublicensing explicitly. It's why you can include MIT licensed code in proprietary software, something that the GPL is designed to prevent.
What you can't do is retroactively apply this to old code. The named entities could use older versions of the code, but in newer versions the new license would apply.
What you can't do is retroactively apply this to old code. The named entities could use older versions of the code, but in newer versions the new license would apply.
What stops someone from forking it and re-sublicensing it back to vanilla MIT?
IANAL, but I believe that a sub-license has to be more restrictive than the parent license.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, not wanting your work to be used for purposes you deem evil seems commendable.
On the other hand, imagine how a trend of this could look. Library X is off-limits for companies doing GMO. Library Y is off-limits for advertising companies. Database X can't be used by anyone who contracts with the defense department. And the restrictions are updated as various issues come into the news.
In that case, using open source would suddenly be very risky. What if your company is deemed bad by someone who makes something you depend on?
The rational move would be to use proprietary software, whose standard is "whoever pays us".
On the other hand, imagine how a trend of this could look. Library X is off-limits for companies doing GMO. Library Y is off-limits for advertising companies. Database X can't be used by anyone who contracts with the defense department. And the restrictions are updated as various issues come into the news.
In that case, using open source would suddenly be very risky. What if your company is deemed bad by someone who makes something you depend on?
The rational move would be to use proprietary software, whose standard is "whoever pays us".
And thus you see the issue... Open source isn't open source if your beliefs of who uses the projects are involved.
Slightly off-topic, but: anyone know where I can find a solid debate / discussion on the political issues raised by illegal immigration in the U.S.?
My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.
My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.
I don't know a good resource but I think it largely comes down to how you see someone who commits a crime or breaks a rule.
People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law.
People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it.
People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers.
People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement.
Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature.
Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway.
So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.
People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law.
People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it.
People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers.
People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement.
Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature.
Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway.
So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.
That's a great articulation of one way to view the issue, thanks!
I'd love to hear from people across the political spectrum as to whether or not your model seems accurate w.r.t. their own personal views on the subject.
I.e., not whether or not they think your model accurately describes the people with whom they disagree on this topic. Just whether or not they feel it accurately captures their own view.
I'd love to hear from people across the political spectrum as to whether or not your model seems accurate w.r.t. their own personal views on the subject.
I.e., not whether or not they think your model accurately describes the people with whom they disagree on this topic. Just whether or not they feel it accurately captures their own view.
I personally find myself quite right-leaning in my beliefs and I find this explanation to be quite on point. I however might add, for specificity's sake, the ideas of optimism/cynicism on either side of the political spectrum - specifically, how we view the fundamental nature of humans. In my experience people on the right tend to be much more skeptical and cynical of human nature while people on the left tend to be more trusting of humans. We see these beliefs expressed in our political parties as well.
Conservatives tend to believe more in personal freedoms as, according to their knowledge of human-nature, they cannot feasibly trust other people - most especially the federal government.
In the same vein liberals tend to work more towards social programs and "the greater good" because their knowledge of human nature says that humans are fundamentally good and should deserve another chance.
I believe the view of human nature to be the most fundamental reduction of modern politics - OP's interpretation of laws coincides with this.
Conservatives tend to believe more in personal freedoms as, according to their knowledge of human-nature, they cannot feasibly trust other people - most especially the federal government.
In the same vein liberals tend to work more towards social programs and "the greater good" because their knowledge of human nature says that humans are fundamentally good and should deserve another chance.
I believe the view of human nature to be the most fundamental reduction of modern politics - OP's interpretation of laws coincides with this.
I think what you described are sides of authoritarianism and libertarianism, not right and left. From my observation, both left and right are trying to enforce something with laws, but things they want to enforce are different. These two spectrums are orthogonal imho (i.e. you can have authoritarian right and libertarian left)
I'm a big fan of the political compass model. I think it does a great job of creating enough space to lay out most people's political values. But regarding immigration and law enforcement, at least right now, the right in America tend to be pretty authoritarian while the left tend to be fairly libertarian.
Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations.
BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations.
BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
I can't see how the left being libertarian on immigration while at the same time voting for large social welfare programs can work. you can have only one: no borders or social welfare. You can't have both at the same time (until globalization will even out income in the whole world)
Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
I'm not sure. That's a huge issue which I'm woefully under-qualified to have a strong opinion on. I do know that Switzerland has generous social programs for citizens but allows people to live and work there without full citizenship. Which is one partial solution. Though they now have the pretty ridiculous problem of having 3rd generation Swiss immigrants who aren't Swiss citizens.
Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.
Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.
There's not really a whole lot to debate. You can bring up statistics and data, but the heart of the issue is not ignorance, but identity. People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). These people don't want immigration because they see this country as their home and feel it should belong to them and them alone. Immigration obviously gives people with whom they do not share an identity a stake in the present and future of this home. The people in favor of immigration typically either want more material wealth (the economic argument) or do not have an identity that differentiates between natives and immigrants, and so see refusal to allow them as oppression (the social justice argument).
> People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with).
Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
A lot of the immigration hawks are extremely explicit about immigrants "destroying" our culture, and tend to dogwhistle a lot. A few are explicitly white supremacists.
The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
Half of the anti-immigration crowd is absolutely explicit about their racist animus.
If your views skew right perhaps checking out a liberal podcast like Pod Save America, or a leftist podcast Chapo Trap House or Citations Needed. If they skew left, Crowder, Shapiro, Jones or Limbaugh ought to do it.
Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.
Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.
Shapiro is doing great work with his Sunday Special, where he sits down with someone and they just talk about certain problems. His regular show sometimes panders a bit too much instead of focusing on making logical arguments in favor or against certain things. Even though I disagree with him on certain things, I think it's healthy to get exposed to a wide range of ideas.
Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed.
I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed.
I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
> My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.
Congress and CSpan are good starting points.
Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics.
The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate.
So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members.
Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?
Congress and CSpan are good starting points.
Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics.
The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate.
So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members.
Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?
I'd recommend watching Stefan Molyneux's interviews with Jason Richwine. They're on Youtube.
The key issue isn't allowing or not allowing illegal immigration. It's about how supposedly illegal immigrants are treated.
Don't worry Microsoft has their own fork of lerna anyways lol
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214257
…did you read through the issue [1] linked in the first comment there? Nobody could actually find evidence that Rush was a fork. Thanks for bringing up a libre Lerna alternative, though.
[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673
[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673
For people who missed it, Microsoft didn't actually fork Lerna and potentially copy-pasted the code.
https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696931527700481
And quite honestly yeah I read that Github issue. Hard for me to believe they would just be like "OH YEAH WE COPIED SORRY ABOUT THAT!"
https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696931527700481
And quite honestly yeah I read that Github issue. Hard for me to believe they would just be like "OH YEAH WE COPIED SORRY ABOUT THAT!"
> 30 separate tweets in a row trying to explain something
Twitter is definitely not a good platform for something like this
Twitter is definitely not a good platform for something like this
Pointless. Here's a version without the restrictions: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/tree/02a2380b8f18c35799600320...
It would be really funny if at least one of the following would happen:
- the companies on the list would band together and fork lerna
- one of the projects that lerna depends on would tell them that they are no longer welcome to use their code because they hold the opposite belief
- the lerna community to implode because maybe not all the 169 contributors hold the same political position
Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.
- the companies on the list would band together and fork lerna
- one of the projects that lerna depends on would tell them that they are no longer welcome to use their code because they hold the opposite belief
- the lerna community to implode because maybe not all the 169 contributors hold the same political position
Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.
>Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.
This is just so obviously absurd, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I need have to assume that you and I must have functionally different definitions of what "political" means
All software licenses and ToS are political. The GPLs clause about upholding the essential freedoms is political.
Enforcing age restrictions on porn websites is politics.
You can't really escape it.
In a plutocracy (the system in the United states) laws are created by those with power (corporations and their lobbyists). If citizens hold any potential power over these corporations to uphold the will of the people, it should be their civic duty to flex on the nerds throwing children in torture prisons.
If your main objection to this is that it might split the community of an open source project, might I remind you that this software is being used by the tyrants throwing children into torture prisons and tearing apart families for ever. This is worth getting into some OSS politics over.
This is just so obviously absurd, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I need have to assume that you and I must have functionally different definitions of what "political" means
All software licenses and ToS are political. The GPLs clause about upholding the essential freedoms is political.
Enforcing age restrictions on porn websites is politics.
You can't really escape it.
In a plutocracy (the system in the United states) laws are created by those with power (corporations and their lobbyists). If citizens hold any potential power over these corporations to uphold the will of the people, it should be their civic duty to flex on the nerds throwing children in torture prisons.
If your main objection to this is that it might split the community of an open source project, might I remind you that this software is being used by the tyrants throwing children into torture prisons and tearing apart families for ever. This is worth getting into some OSS politics over.
Counterpoint: is Stallman not an activist, one who many of the same people panning this license change would claim to support?
> Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers.
Choosing an open source license itself has political implications and moral reasoning behind it, at least historically. People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
> Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers.
Choosing an open source license itself has political implications and moral reasoning behind it, at least historically. People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
The project uses the MIT license, which is Open Source not Copyleft, it has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of Stallman, it uses a license that Stallman does not endorse.
There are also many examples like the Linux kernel that do use a GNU license yet don't buy into Stallman's belief system.
> It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
How is me making my code public to anyone regardless of beliefs a political act? What is political in your mind?
> People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed.
You would need to prove your claim that "politics was already in software" before you get to call everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed". It's also not nice to attack the people making the arguments instead of attacking their arguments.
There are also many examples like the Linux kernel that do use a GNU license yet don't buy into Stallman's belief system.
> It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
How is me making my code public to anyone regardless of beliefs a political act? What is political in your mind?
> People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed.
You would need to prove your claim that "politics was already in software" before you get to call everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed". It's also not nice to attack the people making the arguments instead of attacking their arguments.
My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. This is not new. Whenever someone posts a link about Emacs do you see people saying "it would be hilarious if someone forked this and banned Stallman from using their software"?
I used the word politics, I was not talking about ideology or morality, I was referring to politics specifically.
> My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem.
I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil".
> This is not new.
You are refuting something I have never claimed.
This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy."
If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.
> My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem.
I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil".
> This is not new.
You are refuting something I have never claimed.
This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy."
If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.
Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.”
It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
>it uses a license that Stallman does not endorse.
This is false. Stallman does in fact endorse the MIT license under limited circumstances:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
"This is a fine license for a small program."
This is false. Stallman does in fact endorse the MIT license under limited circumstances:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
"This is a fine license for a small program."
The idea that this is uniquely political in a way that open source licenses aren't is just laughable.
Well, this can't be in Debian or OpenBSD. I like OpenBSD maintainer Theo de Raadt's take on the matter. He allows usage in baby mulching machines and usage for dropping atomic bombs on Australia:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Theo_de_Raadt
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Theo_de_Raadt
And? So what? OSI approved licenses are particular ends to particular means. They are not the only ends to the only means.
Theo de Raadt's take isn't automatically morally righteous. Honestly, it just sounds like a nineteen year old libertarian thinking "a-ha! everyone should just be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others! it's so simple, we've figured it all out!"
Some people want a better world, not just a more permissive one. Sometimes those things overlap! But not always.
Theo de Raadt's take isn't automatically morally righteous. Honestly, it just sounds like a nineteen year old libertarian thinking "a-ha! everyone should just be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others! it's so simple, we've figured it all out!"
Some people want a better world, not just a more permissive one. Sometimes those things overlap! But not always.
Check out Stallmans argument. He ends up at the same place as Theo, but goes into the why's:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
I wonder if the companies mentioned will cease to use lerna or cease to update lerna? Or if they'll just ignore the clause since the likelihood of any meaningful enforcement is about zero? For example, I checked the top two companies on the list and both Microsoft [0] and Palantir [1] are using lerna currently.
[0]: https://github.com/Microsoft/fast-dna/blob/705cb008a59efb4d8... [1]: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/blob/3c360b50f6106f733...
[0]: https://github.com/Microsoft/fast-dna/blob/705cb008a59efb4d8... [1]: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/blob/3c360b50f6106f733...
Regarless of your views on ICE, this doesn't punish those execs which choose to work with them. Normal devs now have to learn/use something else. This also goes against the principles of open source.
definitely will cause developer pain. We are already seeing issues being closed in typescript related to monorepo and lerna support. [1]
I think that if other repositories follow suit, imagine Babel doing something similar, it could cause a stir for execs, but until the cost to the company is greater than their business with the U.S. Govt it wont stop, and there will be a lot of crap before we get to that point.
[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/25376#issueco...
I think that if other repositories follow suit, imagine Babel doing something similar, it could cause a stir for execs, but until the cost to the company is greater than their business with the U.S. Govt it wont stop, and there will be a lot of crap before we get to that point.
[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/25376#issueco...
While I'm sympathetic to the argument that this won't actually accomplish much, protests always cause inconvenience for non-involved parties, that's kind of the point. A protest that doesn't cause disruption and get attention tends to get ignored.
James Kyle who did that license change is one of the biggest attention seeker in open source. He is jubilating right now on Twitter and it looks like he got what he wanted as Vice wants to interview him https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1034883723273990144
James also though he likes to lecture people is also one of the biggest bully in open source, even the creator of Ember called him out https://twitter.com/tomdale/status/937618418471198720
Let's not give this toxic person more attention.
As for the license change, it is useless as it is already being forked. Also, if we are going to ban every company that does business with evil government institutions, there would be no one left to use the software. This just looks like what a 12 year old would do, James is kind of too old for these kind of things. Oh well.
James also though he likes to lecture people is also one of the biggest bully in open source, even the creator of Ember called him out https://twitter.com/tomdale/status/937618418471198720
Let's not give this toxic person more attention.
As for the license change, it is useless as it is already being forked. Also, if we are going to ban every company that does business with evil government institutions, there would be no one left to use the software. This just looks like what a 12 year old would do, James is kind of too old for these kind of things. Oh well.
Licenses aren't retroactive, right? The commit just before that one is still the previous license and could be forked from?
I’m just here to point out that this boneheaded effort makes no effort to solve for the following cases:
- Companies becoming “collaborators” in the future
- Companies that are on the list ceasing “collaboration” with ICE
The latter is especially dumb when you figure it is the exact outcome this move is trying to inspire.
This leaves aside more fundamental questions of enforceability and so forth.
- Companies becoming “collaborators” in the future
- Companies that are on the list ceasing “collaboration” with ICE
The latter is especially dumb when you figure it is the exact outcome this move is trying to inspire.
This leaves aside more fundamental questions of enforceability and so forth.
very unfortunate to have this in the license.
I guess in the future, we will use our selective outrage, to decide which formulas / research work can be used and by whom.
Jamie Build is welcome to establish charity organization to help, whoever he believes the victims are.
Given current practice of economic prosecution of conservative voices, Technology folks who would choose voice their support for Trumps administration, ICE, etc -- would end up loosing their jobs in the tech sector.
Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
Jamie Build is welcome to establish charity organization to help, whoever he believes the victims are.
Given current practice of economic prosecution of conservative voices, Technology folks who would choose voice their support for Trumps administration, ICE, etc -- would end up loosing their jobs in the tech sector.
Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
> Given current practice of economic prosecution of conservative voices, Technology folks who would choose voice their support for Trumps administration, ICE, etc -- would end up loosing their jobs in the tech sector.
This is false.
> Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
This is you rewriting history to suit your agenda. This is literally not what happened. Your source does not in any way back up your statement.
This is false.
> Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
This is you rewriting history to suit your agenda. This is literally not what happened. Your source does not in any way back up your statement.
I'm getting tired of bigots crying about censorship right around the point where they face consequences for being bigots.
Sorry you are getting tired.
I am sure this debate will continue.
Some would view that, not recognizing Jaime Demor, Brendan Eich as victims of blatant economic prosecution of free speech and political affiliation, -- is being, at least, tone-deaf.
I am sure, that US courts will end up testing , whether this type of organized economic prosecution of Free Speech and political affiliations, is legal or not. Sooner, rather than later.
Some would view that, not recognizing Jaime Demor, Brendan Eich as victims of blatant economic prosecution of free speech and political affiliation, -- is being, at least, tone-deaf.
I am sure, that US courts will end up testing , whether this type of organized economic prosecution of Free Speech and political affiliations, is legal or not. Sooner, rather than later.
And they will not find in these "victims" favor, because this is not and has never been a free speech issue.
Those that argue that this is a free speech issue are arguing in bad faith and need to knock it off.
None of these men were legally prosecuted for their speech, they faced personal consequences for their actions. That's not a free speech issue, it's a "words matter" issue. That I need to point out that people need to take personal responsibility for what they say is a sign of how far we've fallen.
Those that argue that this is a free speech issue are arguing in bad faith and need to knock it off.
None of these men were legally prosecuted for their speech, they faced personal consequences for their actions. That's not a free speech issue, it's a "words matter" issue. That I need to point out that people need to take personal responsibility for what they say is a sign of how far we've fallen.
I'm getting tired of being called a bigot for disagreeing with other people on complex policy issues.
If you think marriage equality is a “complex policy issue”, then the issue is you.
The other examples listed are not exactly good hills to die on if you want to be perceived as a serious thinker rather than a knee jerk bigot.
Beyond that, if you find youself personally getting called a bigot a lot, you should probably stop and reflect more.
The other examples listed are not exactly good hills to die on if you want to be perceived as a serious thinker rather than a knee jerk bigot.
Beyond that, if you find youself personally getting called a bigot a lot, you should probably stop and reflect more.
Really? So if I believe that our border should be secured and non-porous, I'm just a bigot?
Nice non sequitor.
Maybe ignoring context and throwing out accusations wildly is why you get so much push back? People don’t really like that, you know.
Maybe ignoring context and throwing out accusations wildly is why you get so much push back? People don’t really like that, you know.
> throwing out accusations wildly
I read someone else in this thread saying that "anyone who opposes undocumented immigration" is doing so because they are racist. Nice projection though.
I read someone else in this thread saying that "anyone who opposes undocumented immigration" is doing so because they are racist. Nice projection though.
Cool, go complain to them in that context. In this thread you’re just changing the subject and putting words in my mouth.
>The other examples listed are not exactly good hills to die on if you want to be perceived as a serious thinker rather than a knee jerk bigot.
Yes, the examples from the current thread.
Why do I need to explain all the finer points of reading comprehension?
Why do I need to explain all the finer points of reading comprehension?
Just change the license to closed source and start charging for licenses from the companies you want to do business with so I have an excuse to spend the time ripping your shark-jumping software out of my build.
Passing over the politics of this decision, is there any plausible outcome that doesn't involve every organization with any sense at all forking or abandoning Lerna?
1. Put said line in license:
3. Github is owned fully by Microsoft
4. Repo invalidates itself due to using free goods paid in part by ICE, thereby becoming a subsidiary.
The following license shall not be granted to the following entities or any subsidiary thereof due to their collaboration with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")....
3. Github is owned fully by Microsoft
4. Repo invalidates itself due to using free goods paid in part by ICE, thereby becoming a subsidiary.
Please don't use code formating for text, particularly long unbroken lines of text like this. It makes the content you are sharing unreadable on mobile.
[deleted]
Pretty sure that's not what "subsidiary" means legally. (IANAL)
sub·sid·i·ar·y
/səbˈsidēˌerē/
a company controlled by a holding company.
a company controlled by a holding company.
honestly, im not exactly sure how that would work since the GH license does allow them complete nontransferrable ownership of code you keep there.
it'd certainly be one for the courts to decide. that is, if this little stunt doesn't kill this repo and this branch.
it'd certainly be one for the courts to decide. that is, if this little stunt doesn't kill this repo and this branch.
GitHub absolutely does not require that. If GitHub required you to grant them nontransferrable ownership of code hosted there, that would be insane and nobody would use it. Thankfully it's much more reasonable. :)
Here's what GitHub actually says:
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content or otherwise distribute or use it outside of our provision of the Service.
Here's what GitHub actually says:
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content or otherwise distribute or use it outside of our provision of the Service.
(3) is still false at the present moment
1 point by sbr464 3 minutes ago | parent | edit | delete [-] | on: Lerna adds clause to MIT license blocking certain ...
I respect their decision and rights, but I don't really understand this move. I also believe this sets a dangerous potential pattern within the developer community. I personally don't agree with certain statements/immigration/ICE etc. but I'm more put back by this.
Coding is becoming easier and will increasingly include more of the general population (which is a good thing). This means it's about to become much more diverse in regards to religion, political beliefs, personal morals, citizenship, etc.
I don't mean this in the political/philosophical sense. I mean soon people will start showing up in Github/twitter comments, contributing pull requests, with a genuine interest about coding, who look like people you personally dislike. Maybe they are wearing a Trump t-shirt in their profile photo, but their code is great. Are you going to reject their pull request or ignore their comments?
Governments & company policies change frequently. There's also an unlimited combination of potential beliefs, moral stances, crimes by an unlimited number of people and companies. At what point would you decide to add or remove amendments to your license?
I also feel it's hypocritical to use a product owned by Microsoft (github), while calling them out in your license by name. I mean, are you protesting Microsoft or aren't you?
How do you know that an upstream dependency you are benefitting from wasn't created by one of these companies?
To highlight the humor of this line of thinking, why not block oppressive regimes, serial killers (>= 6 people, <6 are ok), certain religious groups with worse principals than ICE?
I respect their decision and rights, but I don't really understand this move. I also believe this sets a dangerous potential pattern within the developer community. I personally don't agree with certain statements/immigration/ICE etc. but I'm more put back by this.
Coding is becoming easier and will increasingly include more of the general population (which is a good thing). This means it's about to become much more diverse in regards to religion, political beliefs, personal morals, citizenship, etc.
I don't mean this in the political/philosophical sense. I mean soon people will start showing up in Github/twitter comments, contributing pull requests, with a genuine interest about coding, who look like people you personally dislike. Maybe they are wearing a Trump t-shirt in their profile photo, but their code is great. Are you going to reject their pull request or ignore their comments?
Governments & company policies change frequently. There's also an unlimited combination of potential beliefs, moral stances, crimes by an unlimited number of people and companies. At what point would you decide to add or remove amendments to your license?
I also feel it's hypocritical to use a product owned by Microsoft (github), while calling them out in your license by name. I mean, are you protesting Microsoft or aren't you?
How do you know that an upstream dependency you are benefitting from wasn't created by one of these companies?
To highlight the humor of this line of thinking, why not block oppressive regimes, serial killers (>= 6 people, <6 are ok), certain religious groups with worse principals than ICE?
[deleted]
It's distressing how many people seem to be either fine with, or active apologists for child abuse so long as it's done to immigrants.
As someone who grew up on both sides of the border it's created a new weight in my gut and every situation is always awkward now. But I am lucky, I am a citizen. I can't even begin to try and understand the trauma these families go through...
Here is the text of the MIT license:
" Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. "