1. 12
  1.  

  2. 4

    It’s interesting that they didn’t explicitly prohibit ICE itself, only collaborators.

    Also, this change definitely infringes on the other lerna contributors’ copyrights, despite the explanations given by the original author. The should have used a contributors license agreement. I wish Github had better tools/policies regarding licensing and CLAs.

    1. 8

      They do ban “Microsoft Corporation” and its subsidiaries. Doesn’t that include Github!?

      1. 4

        It does, so Lerna is not available to GitHub under MIT license. GitHub is still okay, because GitHub is granted a license to publish under GitHub Terms of Service D.4. As I understand, GitHub can publish Lerna, but can’t use it.

        1. 1

          IANAL, but the purchase is not finalized yet.

          (I work for Microsoft)

          1. 1

            The state of the purchase doesn’t really change anything here.

        2. 7

          this change definitely infringes on the other lerna contributors’ copyrights

          Everyone’s contributions (and the whole project right before the license switch) are still available under MIT. MIT permits sublicensing. I guess they should’ve kept the old license in the repo and mentioned what it applies to… but there’s no actual requirement that “old git revisions don’t count as included with the Software” :)

          CLAs are terrible and unnecessary.

        3. 3

          Thanks for keeping this one informative and on-topic, folks. I especially appreciate all the links to the many complex related topics rather than us rehashing them from first principles. High fives all around for a good thread. :)

          1. 3

            This will make it incompatible with GPL:ed projects – right? As GPL does not allow any additional limitations?

            Reminds me of the classic JSLint license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint

            That license had “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” in it – which caused quite a few problems.

            1. 6

              Not just GPL; it violates the FSF’s definition of Free Software:

              The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

              It violates the Open Source Initiative’s definition of open source:

              1. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

              The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

              1. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

              The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

              It violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines:

              1. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

              The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

              1. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

              The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.)

              In other words, it’s proprietary software (with source available)

            2. 3

              The Lerna Core team has reverted this PR and revert information and response can be found in #1633.

              Also : “Effective immediately, James Kyle has been removed from the GitHub org and will no longer have the privilege of making direct contributions to the source code.”

              I don’t know what to feel about it

              1. 0

                This is not only the wrong place to protest against such things, it is also illegal as all contributors have to agree with this change.

                This approval has not been sought.

                In general, I don’t think one should deliberately mix politics and software development at all. It really doesn’t improve code quality and I’m still looking for an example where it did. Please enlighten me if you know one.

                1. 2

                  “ I don’t think one should deliberately mix politics and software development at all. It really doesn’t improve code quality and I’m still looking for an example where it did. Please enlighten me if you know one.”

                  Although I mostly agree, I do know of one from a security perspective: Rust. It’s a C alternative that provably reduces security risks with massive adoption vs about every other attempt at a safer replacement for C. Although Mozilla is backing it (common reason for success), a big part of its success seems to come from its community team. @skade described their approach here in an epic, improvised, field manual on marketing languages that he needs to turn into a book and consultancy for other projects. Those coding in it, regardless of skill, have fewer flaws than its predecessors. It had other benefits, too, given it integrates multiple paradigms.

                  A common refrain was their inclusiveness made people want to join. I think that was mostly great onboarding and positive culture but some liked things like Code of Conduct. Any of those are a mix of political and practical. I’d love to see an experiment where you keep everything except the most political stuff to see what happens in a project that should likewise get lots of traction. I”m curious how each part plays into the situation to create the final mix of users, contributors, and successful/failed products. I wonder what the 80/20 rule is on minimum a project has to do to get most of those results.

                  Regardless of what I wonder, the project with a highly effective and political team on community focus got great results with their methods that nobody else achieved in that area. Safety/security is already improving at the rate of adoption since it’s the default of the language. I give them due credit on that.

                  1. 3

                    Creating an inclusive atmosphere is at least peripherally involved (and plausibly more) in bettering the project. Every project has some form of governance, which may be “political” but I would differentiate that from examples invoking Kissinger and abortions. External vs internal politics.

                    1. 2

                      Thanks for the elaborate response! As @tedu already perfectly put, I was only talking about external politics. Being a German native speaker, I made the mistake to assume the German meaning of “politics” as well for the English language. Surely politics also are internal politics in the German language, but much less.

                      So what I really meant is external politics (e.g. as a form of protest against government or political activism). The Rust approach definitely looks interesting, and even though I am not a fan of the language, its approach in terms of community development and language design are pretty unique.

                      Your point about internal politics is completely correct and I concur of course!

                    2. 1

                      it is also illegal as all contributors have to agree with this change.

                      That is incorrect, the MIT license explicitly allows sublicensing.

                      Permission is hereby granted… to any person obtaining a copy of this software… to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to… sublicense

                      Thus, anytime you license anything under the MIT license, you are explicitly allowing this kind of thing.

                      1. 2

                        Thanks for the heads up, I forgot about that! :)