> But GitHub claims to be your home for public hosting of your own personal code. Github claims to be a home for developers to publicly host code of public use

> But GitHub claims to be your home for public hosting of your own personal code. Github claims to be a home for developers to publicly host code of public use. Any benefit to an individual developer is incident to that overriding purpose and they are clear about that in their use policies. > What GitHub policy did he violate? https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-acceptable-use-policies https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-accepta... gives their acceptable use policies. I think they could easily make claims on any or all of sections 2, 3, 4 and 10. Section 10 in particular notes that Github is a service run for a mass of users and will favor users as a whole over individual privileges. > expressing his freedom of speech, again on his own personal GitHub account, in his own personal (not organization) repositories. Was he running his own Github server instance and I missed it somehow? The flipside to Github paying to run your git repo, issue tracker, etc. is that you agree to abide by their terms of use, and these terms are written for Github's benefit. If a million Github users are impacted by this package breaking their code then why are you surprised that Github took action to protect their users? Marak could have hosted his own git repo if he wanted to ensure his malicious code couldn't be intercepted by others. That's the tradeoff you have to choose. > He spoke about his thoughts about open source, businesses, and economics. Defending this type of political speech [snip] Inserting infinite loops into packages isn't "political speech" and trying to claim as such just waters down the entire argument...