
Lerna restores unmodified MIT license - sb8244
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1633
======
TeMPOraL
So it turns out that this whole mess was one man on a virtue signalling
mission, who presented himself as project representative while not even being
an active maintainer and without knowledge or consent of people who actually
work on this project, and who just got himself booted for violating his own
Code of Conduct.

~~~
AstralStorm
The other maintainer actually is wrong, the changes to the license were
enforceable but irrelevant in the light of forking.

Plus the changes made the license incompatible with a lot of other FOSS. (e.g.
GPL)

This was a specific clause that was badly phrased. (in other licenses you'd
also add a termination clause)

~~~
joshka
Maybe. I'd expect that courts would decide that point. None have ever done so.

[https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-
the-...](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/has-the-mit-
license-been-battle-tested-in-court)

------
siruncledrew
This is a really nice response, to be honest. He did a good job admitting the
mistakes, taking appropriate action, and addressing what could have been done
better. It set a tone of a professional, level-headed response to what was a
semi-rogue, rash decision.

------
acangiano
Well done. Reason prevailed.

------
danjoc
I hope James Kyle seeks counseling after this meltdown. I'd hate to see
another Ian Murdock. Get help.

~~~
alanh
What’s really interesting is that James considers Vice to be evil misogynists
but that he "collaborated" with them because it benefitted him. He sees no
irony in this and feels no guilt of association. Really makes you think...

[http://archive.li/jKTSU](http://archive.li/jKTSU)

------
newscracker
This response painted a picture of being honest, but skipped the part about
why James Kyle was removed. Granted that he wasn’t contributing to the project
(in recent times). Granted that he made a spurious (?) change without
informing or consulting anyone.

But is it right to just remove people because they made a mistake, even a
slightly grave one? What conversations happened in the background? Was he
unrepentant and adamant? Without knowing the answers to those, this looks like
a knee jerk reaction based on concerns and issues raised by many.

I personally would think that community based open source projects would spend
more time communicating and checking if a consensus can be arrived before such
decisions.

To reiterate, I’m not saying the decision to remove him was wrong. What I’m
saying is that this post doesn’t seem to explain what went on behind the
scenes and why this decision was taken and if there were no other resolutions
available or considered.

~~~
alanh
If you look into it a bit, he’s a bully — quote-tweeting people to insult
them, lobbing f-bombs at people for what could be a civil disagreement, and so
on, all while proclaiming a moral high ground.

But.

No matter how deserved the ejection was, I would not want to see an apology
like this expand to include a list of complaints against a member. That would
be stooping to their level. Keep it classy and avoid the details.

~~~
AstralStorm
The most interesting part is adding an inclusive CoC and then strictly
exclusive clauses to the license... Extra drama.

