3 ms·
Morally the author is in the wrong according to many. He did publish malicious versions against the short term interest of the community. However he also distr
by VPenkov 5y ago
Morally the author is in the wrong according to many. He did publish malicious versions against the short term interest of the community.
However he also distributed the software under the MIT license - that is "as-is" and "without warranty of any kind". So I'm having some trouble understanding why would you point out his personal life, psychological state, or his past projects as justification for anything related to Faker?
I haven't checked earlier versions of Faker but 5.5.3 does credit both the Ruby and the Perl libraries.
- IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y agoNo court in the world will accept the MIT liability waiver as a defense, when the vendor intentionally distributed malicious code.
- chaostheory 5y agoIn the spirit of the law, that license is meant to protect authors from honest mistakes. I highly doubt that purposely made malicious changes will fully protect authors.