6 ms·

While I can appreciate the predicament this presents, do you not feel like you are going against the wishes of the original author by essentially overtaking him

by shruubi 11y ago

While I can appreciate the predicament this presents, do you not feel like you are going against the wishes of the original author by essentially overtaking him and publishing his code against his will?

krapp 11y ago
The author's explicit wishes, in no uncertain terms, are that anyone can "do what the fuck they want to with it" [0][1]. I think when he did this, he gave up (willingly, and with a bit of profanity) the right to have any say at all about whether, how or by whom it was published. [0]http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/ [1]https://github.com/azer/left-pad/blob/master/package.json#L24 https://github.com/azer/left-pad/blob/master/package.json#L2...
- perennate 11y ago
  The author also said "if you volunteer to take ownership of any module in my Github, I’ll happily transfer the ownership" in the blog post.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Which is a nice gesture, but since the wtfpl seems to give up any pretense of ownership on the part of the author, it's also irrelevant. Anyone can do what they want with it. If he wanted to keep tighter control of the code he should have published under a more restrictive license. And, if he wanted people to take the time to be polite and contact him through his github account, maybe he shouldn't have wrecked so many people's builds.
    - perennate 11y ago
      The "ownership" I assume is referring to ownership on npm. I was just saying that, based on that excerpt from the blog post, it sounds like the author didn't actually want to keep tighter control of the code, and that re-publishing the code doesn't really go against the author's wishes.
      - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure the ownership he's referring to is the github repo. Since he unpublished from npm, he has no control over those names.
camwest 11y ago
Well the code was open sourced. Isn't that sort of the point of open source?
- yazaddaruvala 11y ago
  Lol, so if I'm understanding you correctly: Someone was nice enough to write some software, that is clearly indispensable. They were nice enough to not charge money for it. They were nice enough to support it, again free of cost. They were also nice enough to open source it, such that if it ever became more convenient for you to fork/change/do whatever you want with, that you would be able to. And when that same person is being bullied (regardless of legalities) and instead of building them up, helping them fight against their bullies, you decided to shrug your shoulders, go against their wishes, exploit the fact that its open source, and when asked if you felt bad about it, responded: (paraphrased) "Well... technically..." On the one hand: Really? You don't even feel bad about it? Do you not see that it is machiavellian? You don't even care enough to use the age old "better of two evils"/"end justifies the means"/etc arguments? Bold. On the other hand: Kudos! I don't think I would be able to pull it off like you do.
  - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
    If the author did not want other people to be able to fork/redistribute that code, they should not have published it under an open source license. If they did not want other people to be able to register those package names on npm, they should not have relinquished control of them.
  - ch4s3 11y ago
    Are you serious? Nice enough to yank it without giving anyone advanced warning, (likely) knowing that it would break numerous projects? My guess based on the timing of his article and his petty argument with kik, is that he intended to cause this commotion to draw attention to his complaint against kik. He could have give the community warning so that major projects could have switched over to another package. So no, I don't feel bad for the guy, I think he's being childish.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by shruubi 11y ago

krapp 11y ago

The author's explicit wishes, in no uncertain terms, are that anyone can "do what the fuck they want to with it" [0][1]. I think when he did this, he gave up (willingly, and with a bit of profanity) the right to have any say at all about whether, how or by whom it was published. [0]http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/ [1]https://github.com/azer/left-pad/blob/master/package.json#L24 https://github.com/azer/left-pad/blob/master/package.json#L2...

perennate 11y ago
The author also said "if you volunteer to take ownership of any module in my Github, I’ll happily transfer the ownership" in the blog post.
- krapp 11y ago
  Which is a nice gesture, but since the wtfpl seems to give up any pretense of ownership on the part of the author, it's also irrelevant. Anyone can do what they want with it. If he wanted to keep tighter control of the code he should have published under a more restrictive license. And, if he wanted people to take the time to be polite and contact him through his github account, maybe he shouldn't have wrecked so many people's builds.
  - perennate 11y ago
    The "ownership" I assume is referring to ownership on npm. I was just saying that, based on that excerpt from the blog post, it sounds like the author didn't actually want to keep tighter control of the code, and that re-publishing the code doesn't really go against the author's wishes.
    - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure the ownership he's referring to is the github repo. Since he unpublished from npm, he has no control over those names.

camwest 11y ago

Well the code was open sourced. Isn't that sort of the point of open source?

yazaddaruvala 11y ago
Lol, so if I'm understanding you correctly: Someone was nice enough to write some software, that is clearly indispensable. They were nice enough to not charge money for it. They were nice enough to support it, again free of cost. They were also nice enough to open source it, such that if it ever became more convenient for you to fork/change/do whatever you want with, that you would be able to. And when that same person is being bullied (regardless of legalities) and instead of building them up, helping them fight against their bullies, you decided to shrug your shoulders, go against their wishes, exploit the fact that its open source, and when asked if you felt bad about it, responded: (paraphrased) "Well... technically..." On the one hand: Really? You don't even feel bad about it? Do you not see that it is machiavellian? You don't even care enough to use the age old "better of two evils"/"end justifies the means"/etc arguments? Bold. On the other hand: Kudos! I don't think I would be able to pull it off like you do.
- BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
  If the author did not want other people to be able to fork/redistribute that code, they should not have published it under an open source license. If they did not want other people to be able to register those package names on npm, they should not have relinquished control of them.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  Are you serious? Nice enough to yank it without giving anyone advanced warning, (likely) knowing that it would break numerous projects? My guess based on the timing of his article and his petty argument with kik, is that he intended to cause this commotion to draw attention to his complaint against kik. He could have give the community warning so that major projects could have switched over to another package. So no, I don't feel bad for the guy, I think he's being childish.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]