4 ms·
I stand corrected. I also submitted a PR that, since he's an attorney, can be evaluated for legal enforceability. I think it more clearly specifies the rights g
by spdustin 11y ago
I stand corrected. I also submitted a PR that, since he's an attorney, can be evaluated for legal enforceability. I think it more clearly specifies the rights granted to npm, and is a nearly verbatim quote from the terms of a consulting agreement we've used with some clients in the past where we are hosting materials they create.
- steveklabnik 11y agoI agree that skepticism is healthy :) I'm sure they'll appreciate the PR.
- screature2 11y agoI like the call out to ("Special License"). However, I think that in defining how npm can use posted code, the existing language is substantially more lenient than the suggested language in your final paragraph. Current text "...That special license allows npm to copy, publish, and analyze Your Content, and to share its analyses with others. npm may run computer code in Your Content to analyze it, but npm's special license alone does not give npm the right to run code for its functionality in npm products or services." (emphasis added) vs suggested text "You hereby grant npm, Inc. a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, __sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, and display Your Content in connection with the services and web sites owned or operated by npm, Inc., its successors and its affiliates." (emphasis added). Your secondary language looks like it further grants npm the right to not only use, but also sell, transfer, and sublicense any code posted to it because the 'in connection with the services and websites...' restriction seems very loose (e.g. why wouldn't selling to support the services be related?). Pretty sure that's not what npm or anyone posting packages to npm wants.