6 ms·

Lerna restores unmodified MIT license

51 points by sb8244 8y ago

acangiano 8y ago
Well done. Reason prevailed.
danjoc 8y ago
I hope James Kyle seeks counseling after this meltdown. I'd hate to see another Ian Murdock. Get help.
- alanh 8y ago
  What’s really interesting is that James considers Vice to be evil misogynists but that he "collaborated" with them because it benefitted him. He sees no irony in this and feels no guilt of association. Really makes you think... http://archive.li/jKTSU http://archive.li/jKTSU
TeMPOraL 8y ago
So it turns out that this whole mess was one man on a virtue signalling mission, who presented himself as project representative while not even being an active maintainer and without knowledge or consent of people who actually work on this project, and who just got himself booted for violating his own Code of Conduct.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  The other maintainer actually is wrong, the changes to the license were enforceable but irrelevant in the light of forking. Plus the changes made the license incompatible with a lot of other FOSS. (e.g. GPL) This was a specific clause that was badly phrased. (in other licenses you'd also add a termination clause)
  - joshka 8y ago
    Maybe. I'd expect that courts would decide that point. None have ever done so. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-the-mit-license-been-battle-tested-in-court https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-the-...
siruncledrew 8y ago
This is a really nice response, to be honest. He did a good job admitting the mistakes, taking appropriate action, and addressing what could have been done better. It set a tone of a professional, level-headed response to what was a semi-rogue, rash decision.
newscracker 8y ago
This response painted a picture of being honest, but skipped the part about why James Kyle was removed. Granted that he wasn’t contributing to the project (in recent times). Granted that he made a spurious (?) change without informing or consulting anyone. But is it right to just remove people because they made a mistake, even a slightly grave one? What conversations happened in the background? Was he unrepentant and adamant? Without knowing the answers to those, this looks like a knee jerk reaction based on concerns and issues raised by many. I personally would think that community based open source projects would spend more time communicating and checking if a consensus can be arrived before such decisions. To reiterate, I’m not saying the decision to remove him was wrong. What I’m saying is that this post doesn’t seem to explain what went on behind the scenes and why this decision was taken and if there were no other resolutions available or considered.
- phpnode 8y ago
  There are some examples in this issue, but that's only a small selection. https://github.com/lerna/lerna/issues/1630 https://github.com/lerna/lerna/issues/1630
- Lazare 8y ago
  > But is it right to just remove people because they made a mistake, even a slightly grave one? [...] this post doesn’t seem to explain what went on behind the scenes The apology omitted the details in an (in my view wise) attempt to take the high ground, but Kyle has been having a full fledged meltdown lately, and that includes a lot of bullying and harassment on both twitter and github (and perhaps on other platforms). > if there were no other resolutions available or considered. Even if there was, Kyle hasn't been a contributor to Lerna for some time, and he stated during the controversy that he'd abandoned the project in favour of a competing project Bolt. In the circumstances, keeping Kyle on the team would seem to have no benefits, and removing him has no costs. Even if there were other resolutions (like, I dunno, giving him a stern talking to and telling him not to do it again?) why would that be preferable?
- trolleyhacker 8y ago
  Why was he removed and not Daniel Stockman? https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1035209432349663232 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1035209432349663232 The two of them planned this together. I think Stockman realizes it was a mistake, but why was Kyle removed for something they did together? Neither are trustworthy from here forward.

51 points by sb8244 8y ago

acangiano 8y ago

Well done. Reason prevailed.

danjoc 8y ago

I hope James Kyle seeks counseling after this meltdown. I'd hate to see another Ian Murdock. Get help.

alanh 8y ago
What’s really interesting is that James considers Vice to be evil misogynists but that he "collaborated" with them because it benefitted him. He sees no irony in this and feels no guilt of association. Really makes you think... http://archive.li/jKTSU http://archive.li/jKTSU

TeMPOraL 8y ago

So it turns out that this whole mess was one man on a virtue signalling mission, who presented himself as project representative while not even being an active maintainer and without knowledge or consent of people who actually work on this project, and who just got himself booted for violating his own Code of Conduct.

AstralStorm 8y ago
The other maintainer actually is wrong, the changes to the license were enforceable but irrelevant in the light of forking. Plus the changes made the license incompatible with a lot of other FOSS. (e.g. GPL) This was a specific clause that was badly phrased. (in other licenses you'd also add a termination clause)
- joshka 8y ago
  Maybe. I'd expect that courts would decide that point. None have ever done so. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-the-mit-license-been-battle-tested-in-court https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-the-...

siruncledrew 8y ago

This is a really nice response, to be honest. He did a good job admitting the mistakes, taking appropriate action, and addressing what could have been done better. It set a tone of a professional, level-headed response to what was a semi-rogue, rash decision.

newscracker 8y ago

This response painted a picture of being honest, but skipped the part about why James Kyle was removed. Granted that he wasn’t contributing to the project (in recent times). Granted that he made a spurious (?) change without informing or consulting anyone. But is it right to just remove people because they made a mistake, even a slightly grave one? What conversations happened in the background? Was he unrepentant and adamant? Without knowing the answers to those, this looks like a knee jerk reaction based on concerns and issues raised by many. I personally would think that community based open source projects would spend more time communicating and checking if a consensus can be arrived before such decisions. To reiterate, I’m not saying the decision to remove him was wrong. What I’m saying is that this post doesn’t seem to explain what went on behind the scenes and why this decision was taken and if there were no other resolutions available or considered.

phpnode 8y ago
There are some examples in this issue, but that's only a small selection. https://github.com/lerna/lerna/issues/1630 https://github.com/lerna/lerna/issues/1630
Lazare 8y ago
> But is it right to just remove people because they made a mistake, even a slightly grave one? [...] this post doesn’t seem to explain what went on behind the scenes The apology omitted the details in an (in my view wise) attempt to take the high ground, but Kyle has been having a full fledged meltdown lately, and that includes a lot of bullying and harassment on both twitter and github (and perhaps on other platforms). > if there were no other resolutions available or considered. Even if there was, Kyle hasn't been a contributor to Lerna for some time, and he stated during the controversy that he'd abandoned the project in favour of a competing project Bolt. In the circumstances, keeping Kyle on the team would seem to have no benefits, and removing him has no costs. Even if there were other resolutions (like, I dunno, giving him a stern talking to and telling him not to do it again?) why would that be preferable?
trolleyhacker 8y ago
Why was he removed and not Daniel Stockman? https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1035209432349663232 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1035209432349663232 The two of them planned this together. I think Stockman realizes it was a mistake, but why was Kyle removed for something they did together? Neither are trustworthy from here forward.