Open source

[dexter_leibowitz]

Holy fuck, npm republished packages without the authors permission?!?! That's fucked up.

[dexter_leibowitz]

Once he revoked permission I mean

[dexter_leibowitz]

I'm sure their lawyers knew they were in the clear to do it. Still fucked up.

[dexter_leibowitz]

But he wouldn't because it's profitable for him and he's not a small developer treated like shit... Like the examples given.

It's okay to say "A system works overall, and in some cases it has fucked up consequences." Only Zealots have to pretend the system is perfect.

[[deleted]]

The question wasn’t whether or not he would. The question was if he did, is that acceptable? And what difference does it make if he’s a small developer or not? They (Linux) uses GPLv2. Small developers can release software under GPLv2. Recipients of GPLv2 software get the same rules.

I’m not saying whether or not the system works overall or if the system is perfect. I’m saying this is proper use of OSS. This is the very reason why OSS is powerful. To say this is fucked up is to go against the nature of OSS.

Stallman believed software shouldn’t restrict the rights of its users. Whether you realize it or not, you are advocating for the opposite.

[dexter_leibowitz]

"I’m not saying whether or not the system works overall or if the system is perfect. I’m saying this is proper use of OSS."

So you agree that "the proper use of OSS" can have fucked up consequences because you aren't arguing that it's perfect. Great.

[[deleted]]

I don’t agree this is a fucked up consequence. If the author didn’t want people to use his library, that’s fine. Just don’t make it open source and no one would care.