3 ms·

> The they have gotten the right for npm to distribute the source code in context of npm. There is absolutely no copyright or publishing right transfer that ta

> The they have gotten the right for npm to distribute the source code in context of npm. There is absolutely no copyright or publishing right transfer that takes place when one "publishes" a package on NPM (or on Github). None. The original author is absolutely entitled to a DMCA takedown notice and NPM would have to oblige him.

mschuster91 5y ago
You can't legally retract opening up software source code under most if not all popular open source licenses.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  It is indeed all, even if you ignore the "popular" qualifier. If a license could be unilaterally revoked, it would fail to meet the Open Source Definition for that reason.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  open source =/= free software. That's the first mistake you are making.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    While they are indeed sightly different, I fail to see how the differences are at all relevant in this context.
  - vurpo 5y ago
    The differences between the two are extremely minimal, basically only relating to patent rights relating to the software. Go read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - the FSF's Free Software definition, and https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd - the Open Source Definition (both by the respective parties that coined the terms and maintain them to this day) and see what the actual differences are. They're not many.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dathinab 5y ago
First you agreed to ToS when you uploaded things to npm. I haven't read the terms but it should be enough for npm to publish on npm no matter the license. Secondly and as important if you publish something under an Open Source license(1) then you _cannot unpublish it_. You granted copyright to _everyone_ for and existing both now and in the future to distribute and use it(2) (legally it's a bit more complex but that's what it boils down to). (1): Assuming you had the legal right to do so, but if not you are liable for any fall out, not npm (because ToS, they still need to take it down reasonable fast, but they might be able to sue you). (2): Within the constraints of the license.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Your Content belongs to you. You decide whether and how to license it. But at a minimum, you license npm to provide Your Content to users of npm Services when you share Your Content. 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.

mschuster91 5y ago

You can't legally retract opening up software source code under most if not all popular open source licenses.

josephcsible 5y ago
It is indeed all, even if you ignore the "popular" qualifier. If a license could be unilaterally revoked, it would fail to meet the Open Source Definition for that reason.
throw_m239339 5y ago
open source =/= free software. That's the first mistake you are making.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  While they are indeed sightly different, I fail to see how the differences are at all relevant in this context.
- vurpo 5y ago
  The differences between the two are extremely minimal, basically only relating to patent rights relating to the software. Go read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html - the FSF's Free Software definition, and https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd - the Open Source Definition (both by the respective parties that coined the terms and maintain them to this day) and see what the actual differences are. They're not many.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dathinab 5y ago

First you agreed to ToS when you uploaded things to npm. I haven't read the terms but it should be enough for npm to publish on npm no matter the license. Secondly and as important if you publish something under an Open Source license(1) then you _cannot unpublish it_. You granted copyright to _everyone_ for and existing both now and in the future to distribute and use it(2) (legally it's a bit more complex but that's what it boils down to). (1): Assuming you had the legal right to do so, but if not you are liable for any fall out, not npm (because ToS, they still need to take it down reasonable fast, but they might be able to sue you). (2): Within the constraints of the license.

Dylan16807 5y ago

Your Content belongs to you. You decide whether and how to license it. But at a minimum, you license npm to provide Your Content to users of npm Services when you share Your Content. 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.