Lerna relicences to protest ICE
github.com
github.com
Here is the text of the MIT license:
" Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. "
This is all just rule-bending though. I'm very conflicted on this issue. On one part, I agree with the sentiment that this is against the spirit of open source. On the other hand, I do like to see the software community taking a political stance, and using action in an attempt to enact change, on such issues.
But doesn't that imply that other people could redistribute to any of the companies on the list? So it's either not MIT, or it's pointless.
EDIT: Thought about this on the way into work. The MIT license is only applied to code contributions once the code is "at rest" after merge. Permission is then granted for anyone "obtaining a copy" of the software. The repo maintainers claim that they are obtaining a copy of the software, but it looks like this isn't a copy, it's the original. I wonder if the contributors really do have legal recourse.
Absolutely. The most important politics.
Of course, using “politics” as a dismissal of importance is only a technique to protect the political status quo from a challenge one cannot otherwise defend against.
- [The Grey Tribe — Activism, Accessibility, Setting Good...](https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/post/175038067648/activism...)
Next time you read something and think "The literal interpretation of this is ridiculous!", try to remember the Principle of Charity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
if you want to make an argument about consciousness then i can tell you that i absolutely consciously chose US as a country to live in, at the age of 41.
I don't support usurping other people's speech to push protests. Copyleft is a wonderful thing, but we have to treat it with respect and play by the rules, else we risk diluting its legal potency.
If this was a single maintainer, or a project that got the rest of its developers to agree on the sublicense, then that would be great. However, this seems like a rogue repo maintainer (or a few of them) pushing a sublicense without their contributors agreeing. Sounds like a great way to turn a few of its contributors against them, but also sounds like a great way to violate their copyright.
While I'm not against their stance at all (at the end of the day, they've gotta do what is going to help them sleep at night and if it is barring the usage of their software, so be it), I really worry about the possibility of this becoming prevalent. What happens if libraries start restricting usage if you support the work of ACLU or Planned Parenthood or any other number of things? Now, I may be able to work with a specific library because I check the right boxes. But what if a collaborator can't because they'd violate it? This just feels like a slippery slope leading to a net negative for everyone
This tirefire of a license is untested and a "Social Justice of the Week". Frankly, the further I am away from the likes of these, the better.
I also greatly appreciate what Stallman said, here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
" There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. " - RMS
That aside, I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. I imagine there are others like me who would like to better understand the situation.
Here's a few sources:
Microsoft employees call on company to cancel contract with ICE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-em...
Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22...
Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietl...
15 Organizations Doing Business With ICE — and How Much They’re Making: http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-w...
If you were inclined to draw a very unfavorable comparison, many otherwise neutral companies did business with Nazi Germany. IBM was contracted to help with the German census, which then lead directly to roundups of Jews and the Holocaust: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers...
They're distributing the original contributions under the new license without honouring the terms of the original license.
The software isn't now MIT+additional terms, it's MIT and MIT+additional terms. Meaning they need to continue to honour the MIT license for all exisiting contributions, just the same way as we need to when we use MIT licensed software. Namely, printing the license as is, unaltered.
They are free to do that then say that future contributions are licensed according to the new license, but the conditions of the contributors' license can't be ignored.
Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now."
That's entirely incorrect. You cannot ever ignore the terms of a license, just because you want to use another license. You must under all circumstances, honour the terms of the license for which you were granted the right to reproduce someone-else's work.
MIT is compatible with GPL. In the sense that it's possible to honour both the terms of the MIT and the GPL simultaneously. You must however, still honour the MIT license in its entirety i.e. Display the MIT license notice in its entirety; it's right there in the license text.
Any new project isn't GPL licensed, it's GPL and MIT licensed. People need to understand this. If I grab someone's code off Github that's supposedly GPL, but it includes MIT code; I can't just chose to honour the GPL and ignore the MIT. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
> But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
Github lists 169 contributors, not three. We're talking about contributors, not maintainers i.e. We're interested in the authors of the copyrighted works, not some open source nomenclature that has no legal bearing.
Yes you can, that's sublicensing, which the MIT license allows. It's also why you can include MIT-licensed code in non-free applications. The MIT license does not forbid any of this. And you're not ignoring it when you say the whole work is now covered by the terms of the GPL as the text of the GPL says; you're actually exercising a right granted by the MIT license. I can totally grab MIT-licensed code and redistribute it to you under non-MIT terms[1]. I don't have any obligation to give you any freedom nor do I have an obligation to make sure you can impose GPL-incompatible restrictions on it. I can sublicense as I wish.
You're right that you still have to display the MIT license but that's not really the point. It's a very minor restriction that is not relevant to the point of this discussion. By licensing under the MIT license, the original contributors to Lerna agreed to let their code have additional restrictions imposed upon it such as denying licensing to certain companies. Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
--
[1] Although in this day and age of widespread internet distribution, you could just go and grab the original from the original distributor, which may be enough for you if I haven't modified it significantly.
No, that's copyright infringement.
What you've just described is actually referred to as relicensing i.e. removing the old license, and replacing it, this is not the same as sublicensing. Without expressly having been given permission to do so, this is copyright infringement.
Sublicensing is when you, as a licensee, in accordance with your license, provide a license to another party. The MIT permits this as long as you adhere to the MIT license's conditions, namely:
[...] subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> You're right that you still have to display the MIT license
You've acknowledged my point here.
Not only do "they" need to display the MIT license, so do sub-licensees, and their sub-licensees, and so forth, in aeternum.
> but that's not really the point.
That's entirely the point.
As I've said before, this is being bound by the terms of the MIT license and the GPL, not simply the GPL.
With respect to Lerna, we have a near parallel situation. Lerna can take MIT licensed software from their contributors, and sublicense a derivative of this software with an attached MIT+additional terms license. However, Lerna must continue to to adhere to the conditions of the MIT license i.e. Display the MIT license in full. As in the GPL situation, the software is now bound by multiple licenses, not simply MIT+additional terms, but rather MIT and MIT+additional terms.
> Lerna is still displaying the original MIT license anyway.
I will concede this is a fair point, in the sense that their new license incorporates most the text of the original MIT license. Given the surrounding context whereby additional restrictions are added, and the fact that they're collectively represented as the one license, I don't know how that would play out in court.
Nonetheless, if we're being pedantic:
- Copyright (c) 2015-2017 Sebastian McKenzie <sebmck@gmail.com>
+ Copyright (c) 2015-present Lerna Contributors
Granted, that's being super pedantic and I doubt that alone would be reasonable basis for any sensible court awarding restitution.
Nonetheless, my entire point is that the Lerna team have claimed in that Github issue that they've relicensed the project under MIT+additional terms. They can't do this, they can only sublicense contributions of contributors - the MIT does not allow relicensing.
They can absolutely relicense their own contributions; as the copyright holder they inherently have that right to do so. However, with respect to contributor's works, they can only sublicense, as contributors have expressly permitted this, as long as sublicensees also adhere to the conditions set forth in the MIT license. So the contributor's portions, and therefore Lerna as a whole, are at best MIT and MIT+additional terms, not simply the latter.
If you're suggesting that:
MIT *and* MIT+additional terms == MIT+additional terms
Nonetheless, as the MIT license makes no mention of relicensing, I would suggest that proclaiming you've relicensed is not particularly wise; which is precisely what the Lerna team are proclaiming (see their last comment before locking the issue). They have in fact sublicensed.
So changing the license to MIT + Clauses is essentially a fork. Since the original work is licensed under MIT, licencing derivative work under a different license is permissible, no?
They don't own copyright to the code, its respective authors do, but they have a license to it (MIT) and are free to distribute and use the code as long as they meet the requirements the license puts on them. Which they do.
That this whole shitstorm was monumentally stupid go-proprietary-in-a-fit-of-zeal is another thing.
That's quite the accusation.
I'm not going to repeat myself further. I suggest you read my existing comments regarding this matter, in particular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17869267
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
His basic argument is that it would achieve nothing because such restrictions based on copyright law are likely unenforcible. It just makes the software pointlessly non-free.
These moves are frustrating. I just want to make neat stuff. I don't want to get involved in the politics of a country I have no interest in.
...BUT SOME PEOPLE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND AND JUST REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ANY REASON.
Do you want to hear what Palantir is ACTUALLY doing using these tools? Here you go:
"[...]We appreciate your concerns based on the article you linked to. We would like to clarify that Palantir's contracts are with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the ICE directorate responsible for investigating serious transnational criminal activity such as human trafficking, child exploitation, and counter-terrorism as opposed to the activities theorized in the article. We're happy to discuss your concerns in person if you're interested, please get in touch."
https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/2870
TL;DR: Palantir is helping the HSI unit within ICE to FIGHT CHILD ABUSE, STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND STOP TERRORISM.
Now can anyone explain to me what is so terribly wrong and evil about THAT? Anyone???
My straight reading of the new license file makes me that, assuming I am not related to any of the entities listed (or their subsidiaries), then the license I am bound by is the license titled "MIT License".
I bring that up, because the MIT License says I need to preserve only the copyright notice (the first line of the file, as per https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf), and "this permission notice". I could see someone arguing that "this permission notice" begins where it says "MIT License".
The annoying thing is, I don't have an explicit definition for "permission notice" (for example, I searched on https://dictionary.findlaw.com but didn't find anything). I could devils-advocate argue that the 'permission notice' starts where it says "MIT License".
Taking that argument, if I _really_ wanted to get this to one of the entities listed, I would make a new distribution of the software, consisting of just the copyright statement and MIT License, which I would then distribute to the entity.
Yeah, it's definitely a reach, I'm just bringing this up to say that craft people who wanted to may find an opening to exploit here, so some fine-tuning may be warranted!
P.S. I'm also a little concerned about replacing "2015-2017" with "2015-present", partially because 'present' isn't a year, and partially because, when development stops (as all things in time eventually become dormant), this could be viewed (especially when looked at in isolation) as an attempt at overreach.
I agree about "completely toxic". But it's the policy that's completely toxic, not the subject. I mean, separating babies from their parents? That is just fucking insane.
When you include the context where they need to verify that it's not human trafficking and that children are separated from their parents every day when the parents are arrested for any other crime, it's not quite as insane.
Edit: And what really freaks me about this is what's likely over the next few decades. As global climate change disrupts marginal economies, and migration volumes increase hugely. We're basically looking at concentration camps.
Edit: Some prisons now allow mothers to keep their children.
Abuse is almost certainly occurs in the presence of power structures with severe disparity. Children are being placed in the custody of people who lack appropriate training, background checks and supervision. Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents. These are sufficient conditions for children to be mistreated; I can't bear to think of what happens when the people who run these systems choose to be actively malicious. These conditions are not only present in these "detention centers" (a thinly disguised euphemism for prisons), but also in places like poorly run orphanages and even some religious institutions, to name a few.
I am disgusted by the lack of empathy when discussions such as this one come up. I could care less by your stance on immigration policy; forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior.
- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893... - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/us/undocumented-migrant-child... - https://sputniknews.com/us/201806211065644106-US-Detention-C...
> forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior
HOW that detention is being executed is definitely worth debating and certainly how individuals are treated can verge into tragic territory. Your disagreement extends into the WHY, possibly for noble political reasons, but which turns a blind eye to a serious humanitarian crisis.
> I am disgusted by the lack of empathy ...
This is where I got snarky, and deleted what I was going to say. I'll just note that south of the US borders, there is a LOT of human suffering to be disgusted about caused by failed approaches to government there.
Apparently you have never heard of what happens to every child initially separated from parents arrested for a felony. I suggest you look into the foster system in the US to see the horrors.
The treatment at the children sucks, but it has nothing to do with Trump. It's entirely based on children in the US receiving shitty treatment under 'the system' in the US.
If you want control over your code, you should use your powers of copyright more carefully.
EDIT: In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? What prevents a particular individual AT Microsoft from downloading and using your code? And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
There are all sorts of questions and contradictions. I don't think this works.
IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you to include the restriction in the copy you give to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
> Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you.
An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft.
Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license.
> I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.
Microsoft not wanting to wade into that mess.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17865360
> And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
The same enforcement mechanisms they were using before.
When you publish an MIT-licensed piece of code, you're basically saying "I don't really care about enforcement. Please be nice and leave the license information here."
There's practically no good way to enforce an MIT license, if only because you've given all rights to the product away already.
-----------
But by saying "I don't want Microsoft to use this product", now you actually are saying you care somewhat about how your product is used. Which now begs the question: how do you enforce that?
GNU has lawyers who protect their copyleft license, and are willing to take you to court on the issue for example.
This is 100% untrue, making the rest of your comment meaningless and useless.
- Lerna is no longer free software (per the FSF's definitions) or open source software (per the OSI's definitions), so calling it "open source" is inaccurate
- Lerna is effectively illegal to host on GitHub, since its license terms prevent GitHub's parent company (Microsoft) from being able to legally distribute it in source form
- Lerna probably can't relicense anyway without explicit consent from all contributors, since there was no CLA establishing copyright assignment
The result of that effort will be a day fielding questions from everyone but ICE about what the heck is wrong with your shirt.
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/palantir-provides-the-en...
Now that we are both aware, let's talk about their license. Is it now a non-free license? How does it affect their current non-Palantir user base? Is it enforceable? Was it meant to be enforceable? Are there ways in which a license written by people who aren't themselves lawyers can come back to bite them?
This entire digression goes away completely if they put the relevant information nearly anywhere else. Their front page, README.md, change log, etc. Hell, they could even put it as a "did you know" comment in the body of the code.
They could do any or all of them and get just as much or more notoriety as they did by ruining their open source/free software compatible license.
I understand the motivation with wanting to protest in the best way you can, but I think in this case, it is going to do more harm than good.
For example, if they put the same information in a comment in the code, then whatever flame war might ensue would at least be fully on the social implications of it. Nobody will worry about the comment accidentally getting interpreted improperly by various JS engines. Nobody will talk about how the big company they work for will not touch code that has certain comments because the comment department advised them those comments are radioactive. Troglodytes won't pop up to poorly recite what they think they read on the wall about comments and maximizing freedom.
All of that and more will happen when you write anything non-standard in a license for a FLOSS project. It's a dog-whistle to every programmer out there who has dreamed of pretending to be a lawyer.
I offer into evidence the ratio of ICE-related posts to licensing-desiderata-related posts in this thread.
If you've really got so much energy to waste that your thinking about writing your own custom license blurb, just go reverse-engineer a baseband OS or something.
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1633
Someone had very decent aims-- protesting ICE-- and executed it in the wrong scope-- a license change.
If you read the comments on that issue you'll see at least one person takes that as a good lesson for avoiding the very decent aims in open source projects.
That is unfortunate, and IMO a good reason to avoid mucking around with licenses at all.
What you can't do is retroactively apply this to old code. The named entities could use older versions of the code, but in newer versions the new license would apply.
On the other hand, imagine how a trend of this could look. Library X is off-limits for companies doing GMO. Library Y is off-limits for advertising companies. Database X can't be used by anyone who contracts with the defense department. And the restrictions are updated as various issues come into the news.
In that case, using open source would suddenly be very risky. What if your company is deemed bad by someone who makes something you depend on?
The rational move would be to use proprietary software, whose standard is "whoever pays us".
My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.
People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law.
People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it.
People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers.
People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement.
Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature.
Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway.
So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.
I'd love to hear from people across the political spectrum as to whether or not your model seems accurate w.r.t. their own personal views on the subject.
I.e., not whether or not they think your model accurately describes the people with whom they disagree on this topic. Just whether or not they feel it accurately captures their own view.
Conservatives tend to believe more in personal freedoms as, according to their knowledge of human-nature, they cannot feasibly trust other people - most especially the federal government.
In the same vein liberals tend to work more towards social programs and "the greater good" because their knowledge of human nature says that humans are fundamentally good and should deserve another chance.
I believe the view of human nature to be the most fundamental reduction of modern politics - OP's interpretation of laws coincides with this.
Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations.
BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.
Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
Congress and CSpan are good starting points.
Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics.
The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate.
So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members.
Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?
Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.
Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed.
I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673
https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696931527700481
And quite honestly yeah I read that Github issue. Hard for me to believe they would just be like "OH YEAH WE COPIED SORRY ABOUT THAT!"
Twitter is definitely not a good platform for something like this
- the companies on the list would band together and fork lerna
- one of the projects that lerna depends on would tell them that they are no longer welcome to use their code because they hold the opposite belief
- the lerna community to implode because maybe not all the 169 contributors hold the same political position
Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.
> Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers.
Choosing an open source license itself has political implications and moral reasoning behind it, at least historically. People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
There are also many examples like the Linux kernel that do use a GNU license yet don't buy into Stallman's belief system.
> It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
How is me making my code public to anyone regardless of beliefs a political act? What is political in your mind?
> People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed.
You would need to prove your claim that "politics was already in software" before you get to call everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed". It's also not nice to attack the people making the arguments instead of attacking their arguments.
> My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem.
I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil".
> This is not new.
You are refuting something I have never claimed.
This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy."
If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.
It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
This is false. Stallman does in fact endorse the MIT license under limited circumstances:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
"This is a fine license for a small program."
This is just so obviously absurd, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I need have to assume that you and I must have functionally different definitions of what "political" means
All software licenses and ToS are political. The GPLs clause about upholding the essential freedoms is political.
Enforcing age restrictions on porn websites is politics.
You can't really escape it.
In a plutocracy (the system in the United states) laws are created by those with power (corporations and their lobbyists). If citizens hold any potential power over these corporations to uphold the will of the people, it should be their civic duty to flex on the nerds throwing children in torture prisons.
If your main objection to this is that it might split the community of an open source project, might I remind you that this software is being used by the tyrants throwing children into torture prisons and tearing apart families for ever. This is worth getting into some OSS politics over.
Theo de Raadt's take isn't automatically morally righteous. Honestly, it just sounds like a nineteen year old libertarian thinking "a-ha! everyone should just be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others! it's so simple, we've figured it all out!"
Some people want a better world, not just a more permissive one. Sometimes those things overlap! But not always.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
[0]: https://github.com/Microsoft/fast-dna/blob/705cb008a59efb4d8... [1]: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/blob/3c360b50f6106f733...
I think that if other repositories follow suit, imagine Babel doing something similar, it could cause a stir for execs, but until the cost to the company is greater than their business with the U.S. Govt it wont stop, and there will be a lot of crap before we get to that point.
[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/25376#issueco...
James also though he likes to lecture people is also one of the biggest bully in open source, even the creator of Ember called him out https://twitter.com/tomdale/status/937618418471198720
Let's not give this toxic person more attention.
As for the license change, it is useless as it is already being forked. Also, if we are going to ban every company that does business with evil government institutions, there would be no one left to use the software. This just looks like what a 12 year old would do, James is kind of too old for these kind of things. Oh well.
- Companies becoming “collaborators” in the future
- Companies that are on the list ceasing “collaboration” with ICE
The latter is especially dumb when you figure it is the exact outcome this move is trying to inspire.
This leaves aside more fundamental questions of enforceability and so forth.
Jamie Build is welcome to establish charity organization to help, whoever he believes the victims are.
Given current practice of economic prosecution of conservative voices, Technology folks who would choose voice their support for Trumps administration, ICE, etc -- would end up loosing their jobs in the tech sector.
Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
This is false.
> Just like what happened to javascript creator, Brendan Eich [1].
This is you rewriting history to suit your agenda. This is literally not what happened. Your source does not in any way back up your statement.
Some would view that, not recognizing Jaime Demor, Brendan Eich as victims of blatant economic prosecution of free speech and political affiliation, -- is being, at least, tone-deaf.
I am sure, that US courts will end up testing , whether this type of organized economic prosecution of Free Speech and political affiliations, is legal or not. Sooner, rather than later.
Those that argue that this is a free speech issue are arguing in bad faith and need to knock it off.
None of these men were legally prosecuted for their speech, they faced personal consequences for their actions. That's not a free speech issue, it's a "words matter" issue. That I need to point out that people need to take personal responsibility for what they say is a sign of how far we've fallen.
The other examples listed are not exactly good hills to die on if you want to be perceived as a serious thinker rather than a knee jerk bigot.
Beyond that, if you find youself personally getting called a bigot a lot, you should probably stop and reflect more.
Maybe ignoring context and throwing out accusations wildly is why you get so much push back? People don’t really like that, you know.
I read someone else in this thread saying that "anyone who opposes undocumented immigration" is doing so because they are racist. Nice projection though.
Why do I need to explain all the finer points of reading comprehension?
The following license shall not be granted to the following entities or any subsidiary thereof due to their collaboration with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")....
3. Github is owned fully by Microsoft
4. Repo invalidates itself due to using free goods paid in part by ICE, thereby becoming a subsidiary.
a company controlled by a holding company.
it'd certainly be one for the courts to decide. that is, if this little stunt doesn't kill this repo and this branch.
Here's what GitHub actually says:
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content or otherwise distribute or use it outside of our provision of the Service.
I respect their decision and rights, but I don't really understand this move. I also believe this sets a dangerous potential pattern within the developer community. I personally don't agree with certain statements/immigration/ICE etc. but I'm more put back by this.
Coding is becoming easier and will increasingly include more of the general population (which is a good thing). This means it's about to become much more diverse in regards to religion, political beliefs, personal morals, citizenship, etc.
I don't mean this in the political/philosophical sense. I mean soon people will start showing up in Github/twitter comments, contributing pull requests, with a genuine interest about coding, who look like people you personally dislike. Maybe they are wearing a Trump t-shirt in their profile photo, but their code is great. Are you going to reject their pull request or ignore their comments?
Governments & company policies change frequently. There's also an unlimited combination of potential beliefs, moral stances, crimes by an unlimited number of people and companies. At what point would you decide to add or remove amendments to your license?
I also feel it's hypocritical to use a product owned by Microsoft (github), while calling them out in your license by name. I mean, are you protesting Microsoft or aren't you?
How do you know that an upstream dependency you are benefitting from wasn't created by one of these companies?
To highlight the humor of this line of thinking, why not block oppressive regimes, serial killers (>= 6 people, <6 are ok), certain religious groups with worse principals than ICE?