5 ms·

Microsoft isn't asserting any sort of ownership - colors.js is licensed under MIT. Microsoft is free to make whatever changes they like and redistribute said ch

Microsoft isn't asserting any sort of ownership - colors.js is licensed under MIT. Microsoft is free to make whatever changes they like and redistribute said changes. (But as was already mentioned, they merely dropped the broken versions and set the last working version as "latest".)

GeekyBear 5y ago
> Microsoft isn't asserting any sort of ownership The person who holds the copyright isn't allowed to access the repo. Microsoft changed the code in their repo. Those things don't happen without Microsoft asserting ownership.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Who owns repo? The author has a right to package code, but he doesn't want have the right to use other people's platforms to distribute it. This is a lot like twitter bans isn't it?
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    Is Twitter allowed to change the text of your tweets? As mentioned in the original post, Microsoft had the right to ban the developer, and not host their projects in the future. They also had the right to fork the repos and change the fork in any way they liked. What I don't believe they have is the right to seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission.
    - Arnavion 5y ago
      If you edit a tweet I'm sure Twitter reserves the right to roll back your edit, yes. And I don't see why that would be illegal. Edit: re: reserving the right, https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos does indeed grant Twitter the license to "adapt" and "modify" the content you post to it.
    - amyjess 5y ago
      The MIT license explicitly gives the entire world the right to distribute and modify and project licensed under it. The author isn't allowed any takesie-backsies. Everyone is well within their rights to host copies of faker and colors and any other MIT-licensed project in existence regardless of whether or not the author objects to it. If the author didn't want third parties redistributing copies of their code, they shouldn't have released it under the MIT license.
    - kall 5y ago
      Well I didn't explicitly license my tweets to allow that, so maybe not. But they probably are, anyway. What's really the difference between "fork the repos and change the fork" and "seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission". It just comes down to the specific reference/name on GitHub and npm. I don't think there are any IP issues involved. I am pretty sure that those platforms have given themselves unlimited rights to do whatever they want with the identifiers inside their platform. You don't "own" a username on social media. Maybe the worst that could be said is that they are impersonating someone, which might be illegal? IANAL as should be obvious.
      - GeekyBear 5y ago
        > What's really the difference between "fork the repos and change the fork" and "seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission". Ownership is the difference. In the US, you get copyright on the code you write. The MIT license waives certain rights to the code you own, but not all of them. The developer gave Microsoft (and everybody else) the right to fork the code and do anything with the fork they liked when they chose the MIT license. They did not give up every right to the code they owned.
        kall 5y ago
        I live in a country where copyright is automatic and inalienable, so I am aware. But what does seize mean in this context? What is the difference, as far as the MIT License is concerned, between "fork the repos and change the fork" and what Microsoft is doing here? They are not seizing the copyright, if such a thing is even possible.
        GeekyBear 5y ago
        Licensing your code under an open source license is not the same thing as giving up ownership of your code. Here's an example where a huge open source project must get permission from every coder who ever contributed before they can make a change to the licensing. https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2021-11-18-relicensing-update/ https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2021-11-18-relicensing-update/ This coder chose a license that allows you to fork and modify the fork. That does not give you the right to seize the project and change the original.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  The person who holds the copyright doesn't own the storage for the repo. They agreed to a terms of service, which they almost certainly violated by pushing malicious code. Microsoft undid a change; that's not even derivative, it's literally the same code that the author published. To claim that Microsoft can't remove content from GitHub is wild.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    While I agree that Microsoft has every right to deny service to the developer, ban their account and remove all of their repos, that doesn't mean that Microsoft has the right to forcibly seize the developers IP.
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      What action here constitutes the seizure of IP? The code was licensed under MIT. The developer is free to host it elsewhere and Microsoft retains no rights other than the ones explicitly granted to them.
- profmonocle 5y ago
  Being the copyright owner of a piece of OSS doesn't give you control over every location where that software is hosted. For example, the developers of Python can't update the Python package in Debian's apt repo, Debian decides when to pull in new versions. (And if they want to add custom patches.) This doesn't mean Debian is declaring ownership of Python, they're simply distributing it in accordance with the license. Just because NPM allows developers to self-publish doesn't mean that's a guaranteed perpetual right, and it doesn't mean MIT-licensed packages can't be published on NPM against the developer's wishes. Licensing code under the MIT license (or any common FOSS license really) is the wrong move if you want to control where your software is distributed, and by who.

GeekyBear 5y ago

> Microsoft isn't asserting any sort of ownership The person who holds the copyright isn't allowed to access the repo. Microsoft changed the code in their repo. Those things don't happen without Microsoft asserting ownership.

monkeybutton 5y ago
Who owns repo? The author has a right to package code, but he doesn't want have the right to use other people's platforms to distribute it. This is a lot like twitter bans isn't it?
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  Is Twitter allowed to change the text of your tweets? As mentioned in the original post, Microsoft had the right to ban the developer, and not host their projects in the future. They also had the right to fork the repos and change the fork in any way they liked. What I don't believe they have is the right to seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission.
  - Arnavion 5y ago
    If you edit a tweet I'm sure Twitter reserves the right to roll back your edit, yes. And I don't see why that would be illegal. Edit: re: reserving the right, https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos does indeed grant Twitter the license to "adapt" and "modify" the content you post to it.
  - amyjess 5y ago
    The MIT license explicitly gives the entire world the right to distribute and modify and project licensed under it. The author isn't allowed any takesie-backsies. Everyone is well within their rights to host copies of faker and colors and any other MIT-licensed project in existence regardless of whether or not the author objects to it. If the author didn't want third parties redistributing copies of their code, they shouldn't have released it under the MIT license.
  - kall 5y ago
    Well I didn't explicitly license my tweets to allow that, so maybe not. But they probably are, anyway. What's really the difference between "fork the repos and change the fork" and "seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission". It just comes down to the specific reference/name on GitHub and npm. I don't think there are any IP issues involved. I am pretty sure that those platforms have given themselves unlimited rights to do whatever they want with the identifiers inside their platform. You don't "own" a username on social media. Maybe the worst that could be said is that they are impersonating someone, which might be illegal? IANAL as should be obvious.
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      > What's really the difference between "fork the repos and change the fork" and "seize and modify somebody else's IP without permission". Ownership is the difference. In the US, you get copyright on the code you write. The MIT license waives certain rights to the code you own, but not all of them. The developer gave Microsoft (and everybody else) the right to fork the code and do anything with the fork they liked when they chose the MIT license. They did not give up every right to the code they owned.
      - kall 5y ago
        I live in a country where copyright is automatic and inalienable, so I am aware. But what does seize mean in this context? What is the difference, as far as the MIT License is concerned, between "fork the repos and change the fork" and what Microsoft is doing here? They are not seizing the copyright, if such a thing is even possible.
        GeekyBear 5y ago
        Licensing your code under an open source license is not the same thing as giving up ownership of your code. Here's an example where a huge open source project must get permission from every coder who ever contributed before they can make a change to the licensing. https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2021-11-18-relicensing-update/ https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2021-11-18-relicensing-update/ This coder chose a license that allows you to fork and modify the fork. That does not give you the right to seize the project and change the original.
bastawhiz 5y ago
The person who holds the copyright doesn't own the storage for the repo. They agreed to a terms of service, which they almost certainly violated by pushing malicious code. Microsoft undid a change; that's not even derivative, it's literally the same code that the author published. To claim that Microsoft can't remove content from GitHub is wild.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  While I agree that Microsoft has every right to deny service to the developer, ban their account and remove all of their repos, that doesn't mean that Microsoft has the right to forcibly seize the developers IP.
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    What action here constitutes the seizure of IP? The code was licensed under MIT. The developer is free to host it elsewhere and Microsoft retains no rights other than the ones explicitly granted to them.
profmonocle 5y ago
Being the copyright owner of a piece of OSS doesn't give you control over every location where that software is hosted. For example, the developers of Python can't update the Python package in Debian's apt repo, Debian decides when to pull in new versions. (And if they want to add custom patches.) This doesn't mean Debian is declaring ownership of Python, they're simply distributing it in accordance with the license. Just because NPM allows developers to self-publish doesn't mean that's a guaranteed perpetual right, and it doesn't mean MIT-licensed packages can't be published on NPM against the developer's wishes. Licensing code under the MIT license (or any common FOSS license really) is the wrong move if you want to control where your software is distributed, and by who.