7 ms·

> There is a social contract in the world of open source. No there isn't. What there is however is the actual contract of the repo (MIT License): THE SOFTWARE

> There is a social contract in the world of open source. No there isn't. What there is however is the actual contract of the repo (MIT License): THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Listen, open source is about freedom, and the author is perfectly within his rights to freely change HIS OWN REPO as he wishes. Just as anyone is within his rights to freely FORK THE REPO. This is open source.

arcticbull 5y ago
> This is open source. No, it's not. The idea that you can waive the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose covers good faith mistakes or omissions. It doesn't cover intentional misrepresentations or excuse blatant fraud and criminality. For instance, if you sneak in a ransomware package, it's not "all good folks" because "there's no warranty, it's my repo and you can munch on my nuggets." The author offered something to the community on certain terms and made certain representations. The author then decided that they had sellers remorse, and instead of acting like a professional adult who realized they made a poor investment (and finding a new maintainer), they threw a tantrum and decided to try and stick it to "the man" by violating the representations they previously made to the community as a whole. This was petty, petulant and in bad faith. Does it rise to the level of criminality? It might, IANAL though. Nobody's going to go after them because it was more immature than truly harmful.
- zepolen 5y ago
  You should have been on the internet a couple decades ago, you'd have hated it (and we'd all have laughed at you.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Thankfully, most of the community has matured in the interceding decades.
    - zepolen 5y ago
      Actually, most of the community no longer spends their time here, but of course you wouldn't know about that, you are not invited.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        If it's a community of folks who release open source projects, see their success, then throw tantrums I mean, that doesn't sound like a loss to me. I'm happy that y'all were able to build a community on common foundations and I wish you the best of luck!
  - 1_player 5y ago
    I don't think you remember how the internet was 20 years ago very well to make a statement like that.
- ethanwillis 5y ago
  It's not a ransomware package and drawing upon metaphors like this is poor reasoning. I suggest you read some Dijkstra on this idea of "medieval thinking."
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    [edit] The point I was making is not that the author committed a ransomware package (or even that it is a good analogy) but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to by virtue that it is yours is trivially falsifiable.
    - ethanwillis 5y ago
      Sorry, I can't continue a good faith argument with someone who defines this as malware. It's delusional. I won't edit my comment above except to note what the original parent comment was: " The author committed malware to a package many relied on, that they had not made a commit to in 3 years. My point is not that the author committed a ransomware package but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to is trivially falsifiable."
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        You are correct that calling it malware is borderline - it was malicious software designed to cause harm or nuisance (to some degree) for users. However, I have amended my comment to for clarity of intent. The definition of malware for the record is: ... software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Seems close to me, the modifications were designed to disrupt the users of this package. This is not strictly relevant.
        ethanwillis 5y ago
        All I want to say is that if accepting your argument as 100% true, then corporations have done much worse with software end users have actually PAID for. Yet, this same community that holds this developer of software that is free is held to a higher standard they don't apply to their own commercial projects.
- krageon 5y ago
  Perhaps it would help if you took a step back and realised you are demanding something from someone who volunteered to let you have some of their work with no guarantee other than that you'd get the work. There was a time where we'd say "yes, this is cool. I'll use it" and we moved on. Now you can't publish something online without an army making frankly toxic demands on your time because they feel there is something wrong with what you made. The attitude you are displaying right now is the one that birthed CoCs and the various other straitjackets that we use these days because folks have lost the ability to tell a toxic community to go jump in a lake when they make demands they shouldn't. And it is a shame, because the permissive and open climate is what makes open source: If you don't like it, you fix it.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Now you can't publish something online without an army making frankly toxic demands on your time because they feel there is something wrong with what you made. Asking you not to intentionally break a package you know 20,000+ products rely on as a result of your representations hardly seems like a toxic demand on their time. They hadn't committed to the project in over three years. All they had to do was continue not committing to it. Asking them to find a new maintainer or not intentionally wreck other people's work that relies on it isn't a toxic demand, it's asking for a modicum of respect. I'm not saying you have to keep building sandcastles, im saying if you decide to stop for whatever reason its not a toxic demand to ask you not to knock over 20,000 other sandcastles on your way out - out of spite. This feels like a clear case of stupid games -> stupid prizes.
    - zepolen 5y ago
      That analogy needs rephrasing, the OP built a sandcastle and left instructions on how to build it which 20,000 other people used to build (their own) sandcastles. Then the OP decided to make a new change for his own castle. "Draw a vulgar expression on the front door." Which 20,000 people blindly copied and then have the audacity to complain about.
      - 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> This is open source. No, it's not. The idea that you can waive the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose covers good faith mistakes or omissions. It doesn't cover intentional misrepresentations or excuse blatant fraud and criminality. For instance, if you sneak in a ransomware package, it's not "all good folks" because "there's no warranty, it's my repo and you can munch on my nuggets." The author offered something to the community on certain terms and made certain representations. The author then decided that they had sellers remorse, and instead of acting like a professional adult who realized they made a poor investment (and finding a new maintainer), they threw a tantrum and decided to try and stick it to "the man" by violating the representations they previously made to the community as a whole. This was petty, petulant and in bad faith. Does it rise to the level of criminality? It might, IANAL though. Nobody's going to go after them because it was more immature than truly harmful.

zepolen 5y ago
You should have been on the internet a couple decades ago, you'd have hated it (and we'd all have laughed at you.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Thankfully, most of the community has matured in the interceding decades.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    Actually, most of the community no longer spends their time here, but of course you wouldn't know about that, you are not invited.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      If it's a community of folks who release open source projects, see their success, then throw tantrums I mean, that doesn't sound like a loss to me. I'm happy that y'all were able to build a community on common foundations and I wish you the best of luck!
- 1_player 5y ago
  I don't think you remember how the internet was 20 years ago very well to make a statement like that.
ethanwillis 5y ago
It's not a ransomware package and drawing upon metaphors like this is poor reasoning. I suggest you read some Dijkstra on this idea of "medieval thinking."
- arcticbull 5y ago
  [edit] The point I was making is not that the author committed a ransomware package (or even that it is a good analogy) but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to by virtue that it is yours is trivially falsifiable.
  - ethanwillis 5y ago
    Sorry, I can't continue a good faith argument with someone who defines this as malware. It's delusional. I won't edit my comment above except to note what the original parent comment was: " The author committed malware to a package many relied on, that they had not made a commit to in 3 years. My point is not that the author committed a ransomware package but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to is trivially falsifiable."
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      You are correct that calling it malware is borderline - it was malicious software designed to cause harm or nuisance (to some degree) for users. However, I have amended my comment to for clarity of intent. The definition of malware for the record is: ... software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Seems close to me, the modifications were designed to disrupt the users of this package. This is not strictly relevant.
      - ethanwillis 5y ago
        All I want to say is that if accepting your argument as 100% true, then corporations have done much worse with software end users have actually PAID for. Yet, this same community that holds this developer of software that is free is held to a higher standard they don't apply to their own commercial projects.
krageon 5y ago
Perhaps it would help if you took a step back and realised you are demanding something from someone who volunteered to let you have some of their work with no guarantee other than that you'd get the work. There was a time where we'd say "yes, this is cool. I'll use it" and we moved on. Now you can't publish something online without an army making frankly toxic demands on your time because they feel there is something wrong with what you made. The attitude you are displaying right now is the one that birthed CoCs and the various other straitjackets that we use these days because folks have lost the ability to tell a toxic community to go jump in a lake when they make demands they shouldn't. And it is a shame, because the permissive and open climate is what makes open source: If you don't like it, you fix it.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Now you can't publish something online without an army making frankly toxic demands on your time because they feel there is something wrong with what you made. Asking you not to intentionally break a package you know 20,000+ products rely on as a result of your representations hardly seems like a toxic demand on their time. They hadn't committed to the project in over three years. All they had to do was continue not committing to it. Asking them to find a new maintainer or not intentionally wreck other people's work that relies on it isn't a toxic demand, it's asking for a modicum of respect. I'm not saying you have to keep building sandcastles, im saying if you decide to stop for whatever reason its not a toxic demand to ask you not to knock over 20,000 other sandcastles on your way out - out of spite. This feels like a clear case of stupid games -> stupid prizes.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    That analogy needs rephrasing, the OP built a sandcastle and left instructions on how to build it which 20,000 other people used to build (their own) sandcastles. Then the OP decided to make a new change for his own castle. "Draw a vulgar expression on the front door." Which 20,000 people blindly copied and then have the audacity to complain about.
    - 5y ago