6 ms·

Lerna adds clause to MIT license blocking certain companies from using it

26 points by WaltPurvis 8y ago

CBLT 8y ago
Original discussion was flagged[0]. Anybody happen to know why? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  I assume someones clicked the [FLAG] button too many times. There's no requirement or dialog that asks why a flag is placed. I've seen this type of license abuse before. I think it was some windows joystick remapping software that forbid Israel from using it. But to see "Social Justice Cause of the Week" hosted in a licensing document tells me very strongly that this software is pure amateur hour and to steer anyone around me away. Stallman puts it best in his essay here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html 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
mikestew 8y ago
Kinda falls off that moral high horse when it's stored on the Microsoft-owned GitHub.
- favorited 8y ago
  Why? It was hosted on GitHub before Microsoft purchased it.
- 49531 8y ago
  Most social / economic critique is steeped within the system of its focus, which doesn't negate the critique.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    I think it negates the critique because one has defined a different level or participation for oneself than what is allowed to those being critiqued. When Microsoft has any hand in the activities of I. C. E., that's bad. But if I add to Microsoft's business either by participating in their other activities (e. g., GitHub) or adding to a network effect, that's okay? Perhaps it's an heavy-handed version of "clean hands", but I see hypocrisy in saying, "these are bad people and we do not want to associate with them...unless we need publicly-accessible source control."
    - lliamander 8y ago
      And I'm sure people criticize twitter on twitter all the time (likewise for youtube). I think the licensing change was foolish, and I wouldn't hold it against MS if they decided to kick the Lerna project off of Github because of this. Hypocrisy (if that is even what this is) is not the worst aspect of this change. What's wrong here is that this kind of licensing (if it became widespread) would result in a legal minefield that would destroy the open source ecosystem.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
shiado 8y ago
From a legal perspective the idea of blocking companies from using open source code seems pretty interesting. It says 'subsidiary thereof', but aren't there fancier relationships between related business entities that can be abused? Furthermore, is specifying 'Microsoft Corporation' even valid? MS operates all over the world and is registered all over the place. By specifying 'Microsoft Corporation' alone, what does this designate legally?
- matt4077 8y ago
  The law isn’t some mindless algorithm. Do you understand what these terms are intended to do? Good, so does ever judge.
dmitrygr 8y ago
How is this not a copyright violation? If I had contributed under the old license, they cannot relicense my contribution under a substantially different license without my consent.
- kalenx 8y ago
  That's specifically not how MIT license works. They could (even _I_ could) sell it under a commercial licensing without any legal issues...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Only if you retain the MIT license file with your distribution, that is the only condition of it. You could sell it commercially sure, but you can't remove the MIT license file and replace it with your own EULA, which is what effectively happened here.
- 49531 8y ago
  I don't think individual contributors have copyright protection on MIT licensed projects? I could be wrong though.
- m90 8y ago
  The PR states you can have your contribution removed if you disagree: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820399 https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820... (however that might work)
- _chris_ 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure adding a more restrictive license clause is a fork of the code base and any new code commits would use the newer, more restrictive license.
ryukafalz 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this make Lerna incompatible with the GPL? Seeing as this adds additional license restrictions that aren't in the GPL, and the GPL is pretty clear about not permitting that.
- wmil 8y ago
  Yes, but it was MIT licensed.
  - ryukafalz 8y ago
    Sure, but if anyone's built anything GPL-licensed on top of it, they're now unable to update to the current version.
    - sieabah 8y ago
      It'd be dangerous to update to the current version.
  - vsl 8y ago
    Well, not anymore.
- vsl 8y ago
  Worse, it makes it not Open Source. One of the corner stones of both free software and Open Source is non-discrimination against persons, groups or fields of endeavor. Eric Raymond explains: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106
chomp 8y ago
From a previous comment I've made: >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. It is my opinion that even in a branching model, the repo maintainers are not obtaining a copy of the licensed code. A git branch is only a pointer to a git object - it's not a full on copy of the source code. So, claiming that a certain develop branch or tag is the original and master is a copy does not hold water. The lerna github repo continues to hold the original code, and their users obtain copies. I strongly believe that the repo maintainers do not hold any rights to sublicense this codebase like they have under the terms of the MIT license, and further, I accuse them of harming copyleft with this sublicense scheme.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

26 points by WaltPurvis 8y ago

CBLT 8y ago

Original discussion was flagged[0]. Anybody happen to know why? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
I assume someones clicked the [FLAG] button too many times. There's no requirement or dialog that asks why a flag is placed. I've seen this type of license abuse before. I think it was some windows joystick remapping software that forbid Israel from using it. But to see "Social Justice Cause of the Week" hosted in a licensing document tells me very strongly that this software is pure amateur hour and to steer anyone around me away. Stallman puts it best in his essay here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html 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

mikestew 8y ago

Kinda falls off that moral high horse when it's stored on the Microsoft-owned GitHub.

favorited 8y ago
Why? It was hosted on GitHub before Microsoft purchased it.
49531 8y ago
Most social / economic critique is steeped within the system of its focus, which doesn't negate the critique.
- mikestew 8y ago
  I think it negates the critique because one has defined a different level or participation for oneself than what is allowed to those being critiqued. When Microsoft has any hand in the activities of I. C. E., that's bad. But if I add to Microsoft's business either by participating in their other activities (e. g., GitHub) or adding to a network effect, that's okay? Perhaps it's an heavy-handed version of "clean hands", but I see hypocrisy in saying, "these are bad people and we do not want to associate with them...unless we need publicly-accessible source control."
  - lliamander 8y ago
    And I'm sure people criticize twitter on twitter all the time (likewise for youtube). I think the licensing change was foolish, and I wouldn't hold it against MS if they decided to kick the Lerna project off of Github because of this. Hypocrisy (if that is even what this is) is not the worst aspect of this change. What's wrong here is that this kind of licensing (if it became widespread) would result in a legal minefield that would destroy the open source ecosystem.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

shiado 8y ago

From a legal perspective the idea of blocking companies from using open source code seems pretty interesting. It says 'subsidiary thereof', but aren't there fancier relationships between related business entities that can be abused? Furthermore, is specifying 'Microsoft Corporation' even valid? MS operates all over the world and is registered all over the place. By specifying 'Microsoft Corporation' alone, what does this designate legally?

matt4077 8y ago
The law isn’t some mindless algorithm. Do you understand what these terms are intended to do? Good, so does ever judge.

dmitrygr 8y ago

How is this not a copyright violation? If I had contributed under the old license, they cannot relicense my contribution under a substantially different license without my consent.

kalenx 8y ago
That's specifically not how MIT license works. They could (even _I_ could) sell it under a commercial licensing without any legal issues...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zaarn 8y ago
  Only if you retain the MIT license file with your distribution, that is the only condition of it. You could sell it commercially sure, but you can't remove the MIT license file and replace it with your own EULA, which is what effectively happened here.
49531 8y ago
I don't think individual contributors have copyright protection on MIT licensed projects? I could be wrong though.
m90 8y ago
The PR states you can have your contribution removed if you disagree: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820399 https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820... (however that might work)
_chris_ 8y ago
I'm pretty sure adding a more restrictive license clause is a fork of the code base and any new code commits would use the newer, more restrictive license.

ryukafalz 8y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this make Lerna incompatible with the GPL? Seeing as this adds additional license restrictions that aren't in the GPL, and the GPL is pretty clear about not permitting that.

wmil 8y ago
Yes, but it was MIT licensed.
- ryukafalz 8y ago
  Sure, but if anyone's built anything GPL-licensed on top of it, they're now unable to update to the current version.
  - sieabah 8y ago
    It'd be dangerous to update to the current version.
- vsl 8y ago
  Well, not anymore.
vsl 8y ago
Worse, it makes it not Open Source. One of the corner stones of both free software and Open Source is non-discrimination against persons, groups or fields of endeavor. Eric Raymond explains: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106

chomp 8y ago

From a previous comment I've made: >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. It is my opinion that even in a branching model, the repo maintainers are not obtaining a copy of the licensed code. A git branch is only a pointer to a git object - it's not a full on copy of the source code. So, claiming that a certain develop branch or tag is the original and master is a copy does not hold water. The lerna github repo continues to hold the original code, and their users obtain copies. I strongly believe that the repo maintainers do not hold any rights to sublicense this codebase like they have under the terms of the MIT license, and further, I accuse them of harming copyleft with this sublicense scheme.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]