This is amazing:
bleepingcomputer.com/news/secu

tl;dr:
1. a developer of a bunch of popular 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 for making changes to his own code.

This is why and @forgefriends are so important!

@rysiek @forgefriends While I do not stand on either side, I also fail to see how AGPL would solve this particular problem. Not that I do not recommend the licnese for it's particular use case (preventing a probable big tech misuse), could you please detail of how it would be useful in this particular case?

In the end of the day, a code has to be hosted somewhere, no matter the license. Maybe it was related to the fact he was not happy with the misuse part?

Follow

@peterbabic @forgefriends the grievance that the developer had was that "Fortune 500 companies" are using his code effectively for free.

Such companies tend to keep away from AGPL. In fact, they avoid it like the plague. Case in point:
opensource.google/docs/using/a

So, licensing his code under AGPL would make them not use it (especially if the code was AGPLed from the start), while at the same time allowing many FLOSS projects to still use the code.

· · Web · 0 · 3 · 6
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!