This is amazing:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-npm-libs-colors-and-faker-breaking-thousands-of-apps/
tl;dr:
1. a developer of a bunch of popular #npm packages publishes new, intentionally broken versions of them as he doesn't want to support for-profit companies with his free work;
2. NPM *reverts* the packages to older versions against developer's wishes;
3. GitHub *blocks* the developer for acting "irresponsibly".
That story again: developer blocked by #Microsoft #GitHub for making changes to his own code.
This is why #AGPL and @forgefriends are so important!
@gargron @rysiek If you don't want to support BigTech, then don't use "permissive" licenses. Use AGPL. The problem is: Most people don't understand Copyright and licences. So they find their way to choosealicense.com which is curated by Microsoft Github. It prominently advertises the MIT licence with "I want it simple and permissive". This phrase sounds fair and good to most people. But permissive actually means "I permit BigTech to run their profit-driven thing with my code".
@t0k @ffeth @Gargron that's all correct. In practice, though, Big Tech will do anything they can to keep away from AGPL'ed code, as exemplified by Google's internal policies banning their employess and contractors from even having AGPL'ed code on their work laptops:
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
> Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office.
@rysiek @ffeth @gargron I wonder if that's not somehow part of a smear campaign against the #AGPL. Because technically, I see no problem for Google if its employees use some AGPL program on their laptops. They don't run publicly accessible services from their laptops.
To me feels like it's more about fighting the AGPL in general because it's bad for them. Imagine all FOSS would be AGPL: BigDisaster for BigTech.
@t0k @ffeth @Gargron oh absolutely, that's an important part of it I'm sure.
But the other, probably *more* important part is *legal risk*. The developer might not even notice that certain functionality is provided by an AGPL-licensed lib. Or, that certain products of AGPL'ed programs were checked into the work repository.
So they prefer to "play it safe" and ban developers from having any AGPL tools on their workstations.
@t0k @ffeth @Gargron and it's up to us to make that into a *feature* of AGPL.
We *can* make the fact that Google *outright bans it* from developer workstations into a selling point, so to speak, for the license.