So, “un-un-publishing” is reversing the author’s decision without his consent, which may be viewed as forking his code and publishing your “derivative work”, which is still however called by the same name, which probably breaks an implicit copyright owned by the original author in the absence of an explicit license. Is this right?
P.S. OSS folks, don’t neglect licensing your work, no matter how trivial.
The package was explicitly licensed with the extremely-permissive WTFPL. A new author forked the code and adopted the name of the abandoned package, which is a long-established allowed behavior on npm. The only new action was we honored a request by the author to re-publish the old code under the old version number.
The package used to be BSD, I think this change was never published:
I was looking for a license in the source on GitHub and didn’t find one. Of course, if ownership of the package was explicitly transferred to a new owner, everything should be fine.
Ok, thanks! Also in theory, a package can have a different license from the source :-)
I downvoted this specifically because I don’t think inflammatory titles like this should be supported.
It’s tough because the content is excellent but the title is intended to be clickbait-y.
I’m not sure what the answer is; maybe liberal HN-esque renaming of article titles?
I didn’t intend the title to be clickbait-y so much as merely attention-grabbing (hence not 10 Things You Can Do To Hire Better or whatever) but I guess it’s a fuzzy line. I generally am only motivated enough to write a blog post about something when I get annoyed about it, so my titles are often pretty angry :-)
It’s not inflammatory at all. It is a bit misleading.
A better title would have been “You suck at taking interviews, and here’s why.”
Except it’s not about interviewers sucking at taking interviews, it’s about the industry sucking at giving them effectively.
How does the author know if I suck at technical interviews or not?