Lerna relicences to protest ICE

https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616

by wwwigham • 8 years ago

143 150 8 years ago

eindiran• 8 years ago

I'd be very happy if someone could present a counter argument to this: this is something expressly against the spirit of the MIT license and Lerna should not continue claiming that the software is MIT licensed. https://opensource.org/osd In particular, this seems like a pretty explicit violation of the "no discrimination against field of endeavor" clause.

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. "

bdhess2• 8 years ago

I don’t think there is a reasonable counter argument. It’s not a free license, for the same reason the JSON license isn’t.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON

TD-Linux2• 8 years ago

It's not an Open Source license either, violating criteria 5 and 6 of the definition. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

roblabla• 8 years ago

It's still the MIT license for other people though. Licenses are a contract between a licensor and and a licensee. OSS requires the Licensor to provides the license in a non-discriminating way, and some licenses, like the GPL, explicitly enforce this. But the MIT license itself has no such provision. You could license a project with MIT to user A, and not to user B.

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.

leereeves• 8 years ago

It's not the MIT license for other people if it doesn't allow those other people to distribute it as they choose (including giving it to ICE).

jdminhbg• 8 years ago

It's still the MIT license for other people though.

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.

vsl2• 8 years ago

"MIT license for other people" is not the MIT license. It's no longer Open Source.

chomp2• 8 years ago

MIT allows for the sublicensing to a more restrictive license. I have no idea how this would play out in court, but it looks like this is allowed. Pretty scummy move though for people who don't agree with this maintainers politics, and very concerning for ANY company who does anything that the maintainers could potentially disagree with. I'd avoid this project now, or use an older MIT-only commit.

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.

dplgk3• 8 years ago

Is it politics when human rights are violated? I don't think it's "politics" to oppose children separated from their parents.

lliamander• 8 years ago

A explanation for why carving out exceptions for evil people in open source licenses ultimately harms the ecosystem:

- http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8106

- https://www.fsf.org/patrons/licensing/20050211.html

CaliforniaKarl• 8 years ago

This is an amazing thing to do, but I have one concern.

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.

mberning• 8 years ago

This is a ridiculous thing to put in a software license and a completely toxic subject in general.

D3vMn9r• 8 years ago

Yea, these people have no culture of a political protest. Kids... Take your political concerns to your congressman / senator, leave your political views outside the door of your office. Anyways, they will learn

astronautjones• 8 years ago

Can't wait for the day VC gets into spines

mirimir4• 8 years ago

completely toxic subject

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.

hueving2• 8 years ago

Yes, when you phrase something without context it's easy to make it sound 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.

ggreer• 8 years ago

How can they change the license without getting the approval of everyone who contributed code? It doesn't look like they required contributors to sign CLAs.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

MIT allows sublicensing explicitly. It's why you can include MIT licensed code in proprietary software, something that the GPL is designed to prevent.

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.

negativegate• 8 years ago

What stops someone from forking it and re-sublicensing it back to vanilla MIT?

dragontamer4• 8 years ago

This is fundamentally anti-free software and completely against the point of the MIT License.

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.

evil-olive2• 8 years ago

In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft?

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.

0: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

dragontamer4• 8 years ago

IANAL either. But...

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.

jasonlotito3• 8 years ago

In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft?

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.

dragontamer4• 8 years ago

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.

Benjamin_Dobell6• 8 years ago

As usual, this is only valid if every contributor has agreed to the relicensing. Otherwise the project maintainers are infringing the copyright of the contributors by violating the license granted to them by each contributor. I see this all too frequently. It's scary the legal recourse people open themselves up to by not understanding licensing.

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.

evil-olive2• 8 years ago

I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given.

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...

Benjamin_Dobell6• 8 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to collate these for me. Very much appreciated.

TD-Linux2• 8 years ago

The MIT license has no restriction on applying additional restrictions, without the permission of the contributors. For example, MIT licensed software can be used in proprietary software.

Benjamin_Dobell6• 8 years ago

It's not a MIT issue, it's a copyright issue.

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.

xaranke• 8 years ago

Can those companies continue to use an older version of the software with the earlier license?

shawn• 8 years ago

Yup!

jhanschoo• 8 years ago

Per my understanding, unless other wise stated, relicensing is still pretty much a fork; versions up to the relicense are still distributable under the old license. In addition, MIT permits forking under a new license.

jymbo• 8 years ago

If you can just do that, can I just be a downstream user, and as long as I have a local license that says, "This is a rolling license fork of lerna" then I can redistribute to said companies?

wemdyjreichert• 8 years ago

Regarless of your views on ICE, this doesn't punish those execs which choose to work with them. Normal devs now have to learn/use something else. This also goes against the principles of open source.

audiolion• 8 years ago

definitely will cause developer pain. We are already seeing issues being closed in typescript related to monorepo and lerna support. [1]

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...

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

While I'm sympathetic to the argument that this won't actually accomplish much, protests always cause inconvenience for non-involved parties, that's kind of the point. A protest that doesn't cause disruption and get attention tends to get ignored.

burfog• 8 years ago

Well, this can't be in Debian or OpenBSD. I like OpenBSD maintainer Theo de Raadt's take on the matter. He allows usage in baby mulching machines and usage for dropping atomic bombs on Australia:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Theo_de_Raadt

exogen6• 8 years ago

And? So what? OSI approved licenses are particular ends to particular means. They are not the only ends to the only means.

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.

nameiscubanpete• 8 years ago

Check out Stallmans argument. He ends up at the same place as Theo, but goes into the why's:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...

jancsika4• 8 years ago

This is about as effective as ripping an arm off your shirt and throwing it in the vicinity of an ICE agent.

The result of that effort will be a day fielding questions from everyone but ICE about what the heck is wrong with your shirt.

augbog3• 8 years ago

The main goal is less to hurt the companies that are supporting ICE by not allowing them to use an open source project, but actually bring a lot more awareness that these companies DO IN FACT support ICE. I had no idea Palantir was working on the technology to help deport people

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/palantir-provides-the-en...

jancsika4• 8 years ago

I'm honestly glad you are now aware of that fact.

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.

ConanRus• 8 years ago

And what exactly wrong with supporting ICE?

aeneasmackenzie• 8 years ago

Pointless. Here's a version without the restrictions: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/tree/02a2380b8f18c35799600320...

75dvtwin2• 8 years ago

very unfortunate to have this in the license. I guess in the future, we will use our selective outrage, to decide which formulas / research work can be used and by whom.

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...

jasonlotito3• 8 years ago

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.

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.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

I'm getting tired of bigots crying about censorship right around the point where they face consequences for being bigots.

75dvtwin2• 8 years ago

Sorry you are getting tired. I am sure this debate will continue.

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.

LordHumungous4• 8 years ago

I'm getting tired of being called a bigot for disagreeing with other people on complex policy issues.

nerdponx• 8 years ago

It's a nice idea. But I still pay taxes in the US. Does that make me an ICE collaborator?

javver• 8 years ago

There is likely a difference to be made between willing and unwilling collaborators. The companies in the list don't face fines and jail time for not having contracts with ICE.

EdSharkey2• 8 years ago

Just change the license to closed source and start charging for licenses from the companies you want to do business with so I have an excuse to spend the time ripping your shark-jumping software out of my build.

jordigh3• 8 years ago

This kind of thing is old hat. It comes up from time to time. rms has written about it a couple of times.

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.

DoofusOfDeath3• 8 years ago

Slightly off-topic, but: anyone know where I can find a solid debate / discussion on the political issues raised by illegal immigration in the U.S.?

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.

mirimir4• 8 years ago

The key issue isn't allowing or not allowing illegal immigration. It's about how supposedly illegal immigrants are treated.

DubiousPusher3• 8 years ago

I don't know a good resource but I think it largely comes down to how you see someone who commits a crime or breaks a rule.

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.

DoofusOfDeath3• 8 years ago

That's a great articulation of one way to view the issue, thanks!

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.

hippich2• 8 years ago

I think what you described are sides of authoritarianism and libertarianism, not right and left. From my observation, both left and right are trying to enforce something with laws, but things they want to enforce are different. These two spectrums are orthogonal imho (i.e. you can have authoritarian right and libertarian left)

leibwiht• 8 years ago

There's not really a whole lot to debate. You can bring up statistics and data, but the heart of the issue is not ignorance, but identity. People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). These people don't want immigration because they see this country as their home and feel it should belong to them and them alone. Immigration obviously gives people with whom they do not share an identity a stake in the present and future of this home. The people in favor of immigration typically either want more material wealth (the economic argument) or do not have an identity that differentiates between natives and immigrants, and so see refusal to allow them as oppression (the social justice argument).

DoofusOfDeath3• 8 years ago

People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with).

Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

Half of the anti-immigration crowd is absolutely explicit about their racist animus.

dragontamer4• 8 years ago

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.

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?

mbo• 8 years ago

If your views skew right perhaps checking out a liberal podcast like Pod Save America, or a leftist podcast Chapo Trap House or Citations Needed. If they skew left, Crowder, Shapiro, Jones or Limbaugh ought to do it.

Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.

TheAceOfHearts• 8 years ago

Shapiro is doing great work with his Sunday Special, where he sits down with someone and they just talk about certain problems. His regular show sometimes panders a bit too much instead of focusing on making logical arguments in favor or against certain things. Even though I disagree with him on certain things, I think it's healthy to get exposed to a wide range of ideas.

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.

wmil• 8 years ago

I'd recommend watching Stefan Molyneux's interviews with Jason Richwine. They're on Youtube.

crankylinuxuser3• 8 years ago

1. Put said line in license:

     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")....

2. Hosts said code on Github

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.

Gaelan• 8 years ago

Pretty sure that's not what "subsidiary" means legally. (IANAL)

exogen6• 8 years ago

sub·sid·i·ar·y /səbˈsidēˌerē/

a company controlled by a holding company.

crankylinuxuser3• 8 years ago

honestly, im not exactly sure how that would work since the GH license does allow them complete nontransferrable ownership of code you keep there.

it'd certainly be one for the courts to decide. that is, if this little stunt doesn't kill this repo and this branch.

yodon• 8 years ago

Please don't use code formating for text, particularly long unbroken lines of text like this. It makes the content you are sharing unreadable on mobile.

contextfree• 8 years ago

(3) is still false at the present moment

Waterluvian2• 8 years ago

Licenses aren't retroactive, right? The commit just before that one is still the previous license and could be forked from?

diegorbaquero• 8 years ago

Yes

freditup• 8 years ago

I wonder if the companies mentioned will cease to use lerna or cease to update lerna? Or if they'll just ignore the clause since the likelihood of any meaningful enforcement is about zero? For example, I checked the top two companies on the list and both Microsoft [0] and Palantir [1] are using lerna currently.

[0] https://github.com/Microsoft/fast-dna/blob/705cb008a59efb4d8... [1]: https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/blob/3c360b50f6106f733...

Waterluvian2• 8 years ago

I use BlueprintJS a lot. And about a year into use I realised that "Palantir" is apparently a company people don't like. All I could think about is how this might become a nuisance if a colleague or customer decides they're going to be political about it.

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.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

Trying to keep politics out of things isn't apolitical, it's the politics of status quo.

mindcrash• 8 years ago

Well the sad thing about this is that Palantir is actually doing some very good things with Lerna, Babel and Yarn and they tried to explain that...

...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???

freedomben• 8 years ago

Finally somebody else that had this thought too. Those all sounded to me like really good things to do. Child abuse and human trafficking are heinously evil. If lerna thinks they are lying, they should say that instead of misrepresenting the truth to make a political point.

mirimir4• 8 years ago

Also see https://github.com/selfagency/microsoft-drop-ice

voidr3• 8 years ago

It would be really funny if at least one of the following would happen:

- 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.

exogen6• 8 years ago

Counterpoint: is Stallman not an activist, one who many of the same people panning this license change would claim to support?

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.

voidr3• 8 years ago

The project uses the MIT license, which is Open Source not Copyleft, it has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of Stallman, it uses a license that Stallman does not endorse.

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.

cazum• 8 years ago

Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.

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.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

The idea that this is uniquely political in a way that open source licenses aren't is just laughable.

yellowapple• 8 years ago

So, if I'm understanding this correctly:

- 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

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

That last bit is not true. MIT allows sublicensing.

mikl• 8 years ago

Yeah, I can’t see how Github can host Lerna with this license, since Github is clearly “any subsidiary thereof”.

village-idiot15• 8 years ago

It's distressing how many people seem to be either fine with, or active apologists for child abuse so long as it's done to immigrants.

nubianwarrior• 8 years ago

As someone who grew up on both sides of the border it's created a new weight in my gut and every situation is always awkward now. But I am lucky, I am a citizen. I can't even begin to try and understand the trauma these families go through...

augbog3• 8 years ago

Don't worry Microsoft has their own fork of lerna anyways lol https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214257

bb010g• 8 years ago

…did you read through the issue [1] linked in the first comment there? Nobody could actually find evidence that Rush was a fork. Thanks for bringing up a libre Lerna alternative, though.

[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673

augbog3• 8 years ago

For people who missed it, Microsoft didn't actually fork Lerna and potentially copy-pasted the code.

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!"

alanh• 8 years ago

I’m just here to point out that this boneheaded effort makes no effort to solve for the following cases:

- 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.

nathan_long• 8 years ago

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, not wanting your work to be used for purposes you deem evil seems commendable.

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".

sieabah2• 8 years ago

And thus you see the issue... Open source isn't open source if your beliefs of who uses the projects are involved.

jsgo2• 8 years ago

Remember when people were apprehensive about using React because Facebook might weaponize your usage of it? This project is explicitly stating it can: you might not be on this list today, but there's nothing preventing you from being on it tomorrow. So do you want to commit to integrating it to your stack?

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

crankylinuxuser3• 8 years ago

Indeed. I'll stick with unadulterated Open Source Definition licenses. I know those; I know how to integrate; I know how to comply. They're known entities, and licensing is well aware how and what they are used for.

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

andrew_• 8 years ago

The author of that change follows the same pattern in nearly every project found on their Github account, and many that they contribute to: MIT licenses with added prohibitions targeting specific groups. Disturbing and toxic to say the least.

mikequeue• 8 years ago

James Kyle who did that license change is one of the biggest attention seeker in open source. He is jubilating right now on Twitter and it looks like he got what he wanted as Vice wants to interview him https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1034883723273990144

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.

sbr464• 8 years ago

1 point by sbr464 3 minutes ago | parent | edit | delete [-] | on: Lerna adds clause to MIT license blocking certain ...

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?

aphelion• 8 years ago

Passing over the politics of this decision, is there any plausible outcome that doesn't involve every organization with any sense at all forking or abandoning Lerna?

Lerna relicences to protest ICE

Related Stories