7 ms·

I don't understand why. It's his code to break if he wants. But I guess when you use a social media service to host your code these are expected and normal resu

I don't understand why. It's his code to break if he wants. But I guess when you use a social media service to host your code these are expected and normal results.

tln 5y ago
Is it his code to inject a backdoor in? As another commenter said[0], this is malicious code and THAT is against the ToS of npm[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29865977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29865977 [1] https://docs.npmjs.com/policies/open-source-terms#:~:text=Content%20containing%20malicious%20computer%20code https://docs.npmjs.com/policies/open-source-terms#:~:text=Co...
ahiknsr 5y ago
> It's his code to break if he wants > I don't understand why If he can break his code because he is the owner then shouldn't the same reasoning apply for Github suspending the account?. It is their website and their rules. Keep in mind Github owns npm and the author has published a malicious package to npm which has 20 millions of downloads so I'm not surprised.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  For some reason, people are adopting the ideologically inconsistent position full property rights to the dev, but no property rights to Github.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    IMO they are kind of different things. The dispute about the code itself seems to be more of a licensing thing whereas the GitHub itself seems to be a property thing.
cesarb 5y ago
> It's his code to break if he wants. This is a library, not standalone software. Breaking it means breaking the code of every software which uses that library.
- nomdep 5y ago
  And per the MIT license, he offers it “WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND (…) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO (…) FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE”
  - not2b 5y ago
    That doesn't give him the right to commit sabotage. If as the developer of a FOSS program I deliberately introduce something that will harm users, a "no warranty" clause won't protect me from the consequences. The guy knew full well how npm worked, and new full well that he was deliberately breaking lots of sites. "No warranty" just means he isn't liable for accidents.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      No warranty means he isn't liable for any behavior of the software at all. You don't have to like it but it is true.
      - akersten 5y ago
        Of all the awful legal takes I've seen on this site, yours is an early contender for best of 2022. > No warranty means he isn't liable for any behavior of the software at all. Somebody should tell all those computer virus authors, all they had to do was not include a warranty, and they're untouchable!
        ddtaylor 5y ago
        Those seem like different things since a computer virus "user" never consents to or accepts the license, whereas someone importing the library into their package.json has.
Dma54rhs 5y ago
Freedom of open source doesn't mean freedom of consequences on their platform.
zarzavat 5y ago
He may have committed a crime. Interfering with computers you don't own with malicious intent is a crime, legally Microsoft may have had no choice but to take it down.

I don't understand why. It's his code to break if he wants. But I guess when you use a social media service to host your code these are expected and normal results.

tln 5y ago

Is it his code to inject a backdoor in? As another commenter said[0], this is malicious code and THAT is against the ToS of npm[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29865977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29865977 [1] https://docs.npmjs.com/policies/open-source-terms#:~:text=Content%20containing%20malicious%20computer%20code https://docs.npmjs.com/policies/open-source-terms#:~:text=Co...

ahiknsr 5y ago

> It's his code to break if he wants > I don't understand why If he can break his code because he is the owner then shouldn't the same reasoning apply for Github suspending the account?. It is their website and their rules. Keep in mind Github owns npm and the author has published a malicious package to npm which has 20 millions of downloads so I'm not surprised.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
For some reason, people are adopting the ideologically inconsistent position full property rights to the dev, but no property rights to Github.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  IMO they are kind of different things. The dispute about the code itself seems to be more of a licensing thing whereas the GitHub itself seems to be a property thing.

cesarb 5y ago

> It's his code to break if he wants. This is a library, not standalone software. Breaking it means breaking the code of every software which uses that library.

nomdep 5y ago
And per the MIT license, he offers it “WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND (…) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO (…) FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE”
- not2b 5y ago
  That doesn't give him the right to commit sabotage. If as the developer of a FOSS program I deliberately introduce something that will harm users, a "no warranty" clause won't protect me from the consequences. The guy knew full well how npm worked, and new full well that he was deliberately breaking lots of sites. "No warranty" just means he isn't liable for accidents.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    No warranty means he isn't liable for any behavior of the software at all. You don't have to like it but it is true.
    - akersten 5y ago
      Of all the awful legal takes I've seen on this site, yours is an early contender for best of 2022. > No warranty means he isn't liable for any behavior of the software at all. Somebody should tell all those computer virus authors, all they had to do was not include a warranty, and they're untouchable!
      - ddtaylor 5y ago
        Those seem like different things since a computer virus "user" never consents to or accepts the license, whereas someone importing the library into their package.json has.

Dma54rhs 5y ago

Freedom of open source doesn't mean freedom of consequences on their platform.

zarzavat 5y ago

He may have committed a crime. Interfering with computers you don't own with malicious intent is a crime, legally Microsoft may have had no choice but to take it down.