3 ms·

Also let's keep in mind that these projects would never have achieved their level of popularity if they were not licensed liberally. The value he's provided was

• bogwog 5y ago
  This guy wants to have his cake and eat it too. I saw a project recently where the author released it to the public domain, but in the top he said something like "I know it's public domain, but please don't remove my name." Sometimes people choose a liberal license like CC0 or MIT because they don't want to bother researching the boring details of licensing and/or don't care. But clearly that guy who wants his name on it, and the dev in the OP do care about the licensing details. Releasing colors/faker under a liberal license was a mistake, and pushing out this malicious update was another (much worse) mistake. What he should have done was updated his libraries to print out a warning like "This software has reached end-of-life and will no longer be maintained. It is being superseded by Colors PRO. Visit ... for more information.", and then started selling licenses/support contracts. But now, not only is he not going to get paid for colors/faker, he probably won't ever get hired by any of the companies affected by this, he might get sued, and he might even go to prison if this gets misconstrued as hacking. EDIT: Ok, after some more research, it looks like this guy is going through some serious shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29868071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29868071 Everything I wrote up there was based on the assumption that he wasn't trying to build a bomb in his apartment...my bad.