51–60 of 162 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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, printin…
Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same."
If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
- 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.
Licenses aren't retroactive, right? The commit just before that one is still the previous license and could be forked from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That sounds plausible. Except that this is happening on a much larger scale than your examples. And they're keeping families separated for months. Edit: And what really freaks me about this is what's likely over the next few decades. As global climate change disrupts marginal economies, and migration volumes increase hugely. We're basically looking at concentration camps. Edit: Some prisons now allow mothers to keep…
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Abuse is almost certainly occurs in the presence of power structures with severe disparity. Children are being placed in the custody of people who lack appropriate training, background checks and supervision. Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents. These are sufficient conditions for children to be mistreated; I can't bear to think of what happens when the people who run these systems choose to be actively malicious. These conditions are not only present in these "detention centers" (a thinly disguised euphemism for prisons), but also in places like poorly run orphanages and even some religious institutions, to name a few.
I am disgusted by the lack of empathy when discussions such as this one come up. I could care less by your stance on immigration policy; forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior.
- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893... - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/us/undocumented-migrant-child... - https://sputniknews.com/us/201806211065644106-US-Detention-C...
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…
> 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.
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.