3 ms·

``` In response to the corrupted libraries, Microsoft quickly suspended his GitHub access and reverted the projects on npm.... ``` Microsoft embraces open sou

``` In response to the corrupted libraries, Microsoft quickly suspended his GitHub access and reverted the projects on npm.... ``` Microsoft embraces open source

josephcsible 5y ago
Ehhh. In this case, Microsoft restored an open source project that someone tried to sabotage. There's definitely reasons to believe that they don't truly love open source, but this isn't one of them.
- salawat 5y ago
  That code was his. Not anyone else's. There was also no assignment of copyright to Microsoft. I'd argue they overstepped their bounds. Further, he violated no tenant of an organization in what could arguably happen if say, Linus went off the deep end and scragged the Linux kernel somehow where you could say he violated the norms of the kernel group. Faker and colors does not rise to that. People may not like that dependencies can have this happen, but this is why you read that code, and don't depend on a million things. Ethically, I can see the case for both sides, but pragmatically, I weigh in on the side of protecting the maintainer's right to post what he wants over Microsoft or anybody else's right to not be broken by blindly sucking down updates. Again, unpopular as it is, that NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR USE OR MERCHANTIBILITY IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT either means exactly what it does, and should be reacted to accordingly by users of the code (audit first), and furthermore, means Microsoft is now on the hook for damages for usurping his intellectual property; or it doesn't and we need to have a long chat about the nature of software.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Again, unpopular as it is, that NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR USE OR MERCHANTIBILITY IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT either means exactly what it does, and should be reacted to accordingly by users of the code (audit first), and furthermore, means Microsoft is now on the hook for damages for usurping his intellectual property; or it doesn't and we need to have a long chat about the nature of software. This is a false dichotomy, and even if the disclaimer was fully effective it wouldn't imply what you say about Microsoft's liability (or even imply that the original code owner does not have liability for malicious harms arising under tort principles other than warranty.)

``` In response to the corrupted libraries, Microsoft quickly suspended his GitHub access and reverted the projects on npm.... ``` Microsoft embraces open source

josephcsible 5y ago

Ehhh. In this case, Microsoft restored an open source project that someone tried to sabotage. There's definitely reasons to believe that they don't truly love open source, but this isn't one of them.

salawat 5y ago
That code was his. Not anyone else's. There was also no assignment of copyright to Microsoft. I'd argue they overstepped their bounds. Further, he violated no tenant of an organization in what could arguably happen if say, Linus went off the deep end and scragged the Linux kernel somehow where you could say he violated the norms of the kernel group. Faker and colors does not rise to that. People may not like that dependencies can have this happen, but this is why you read that code, and don't depend on a million things. Ethically, I can see the case for both sides, but pragmatically, I weigh in on the side of protecting the maintainer's right to post what he wants over Microsoft or anybody else's right to not be broken by blindly sucking down updates. Again, unpopular as it is, that NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR USE OR MERCHANTIBILITY IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT either means exactly what it does, and should be reacted to accordingly by users of the code (audit first), and furthermore, means Microsoft is now on the hook for damages for usurping his intellectual property; or it doesn't and we need to have a long chat about the nature of software.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Again, unpopular as it is, that NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR USE OR MERCHANTIBILITY IMPLIED OR EXPLICIT either means exactly what it does, and should be reacted to accordingly by users of the code (audit first), and furthermore, means Microsoft is now on the hook for damages for usurping his intellectual property; or it doesn't and we need to have a long chat about the nature of software. This is a false dichotomy, and even if the disclaimer was fully effective it wouldn't imply what you say about Microsoft's liability (or even imply that the original code owner does not have liability for malicious harms arising under tort principles other than warranty.)