
Lerna adds clause to MIT license blocking certain companies from using it - WaltPurvis
https://twitter.com/JavaScriptDaily/status/1034842426861645824
======
CBLT
Original discussion was flagged[0]. Anybody happen to know why?

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864799)

~~~
crankylinuxuser
I assume someones clicked the [FLAG] button too many times. There's no
requirement or dialog that asks why a flag is placed.

I've seen this type of license abuse before. I think it was some windows
joystick remapping software that forbid Israel from using it. But to see
"Social Justice Cause of the Week" hosted in a licensing document tells me
very strongly that this software is pure amateur hour and to steer anyone
around me away.

Stallman puts it best in his essay here:
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-
freed...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-
run.en.html)

" 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

------
ryukafalz
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this make Lerna incompatible with the
GPL? Seeing as this adds additional license restrictions that aren't in the
GPL, and the GPL is pretty clear about not permitting that.

~~~
wmil
Yes, but it was MIT licensed.

~~~
ryukafalz
Sure, but if anyone's built anything GPL-licensed on top of it, they're now
unable to update to the current version.

~~~
sieabah
It'd be dangerous to update to the current version.

------
mikestew
Kinda falls off that moral high horse when it's stored on the Microsoft-owned
GitHub.

~~~
49531
Most social / economic critique is steeped within the system of its focus,
which doesn't negate the critique.

~~~
mikestew
I think it negates the critique because one has defined a different level or
participation for oneself than what is allowed to those being critiqued. When
Microsoft has any hand in the activities of I. C. E., that's bad. But if I add
to Microsoft's business either by participating in their other activities (e.
g., GitHub) or adding to a network effect, that's okay? Perhaps it's an heavy-
handed version of "clean hands", but I see hypocrisy in saying, "these are bad
people and we do not want to associate with them...unless we need publicly-
accessible source control."

~~~
lliamander
And I'm sure people criticize twitter on twitter all the time (likewise for
youtube).

I think the licensing change was foolish, and I wouldn't hold it against MS if
they decided to kick the Lerna project off of Github because of this.
Hypocrisy (if that is even what this is) is not the worst aspect of this
change. What's wrong here is that this kind of licensing (if it became
widespread) would result in a legal minefield that would destroy the open
source ecosystem.

------
shiado
From a legal perspective the idea of blocking companies from using open source
code seems pretty interesting. It says 'subsidiary thereof', but aren't there
fancier relationships between related business entities that can be abused?
Furthermore, is specifying 'Microsoft Corporation' even valid? MS operates all
over the world and is registered all over the place. By specifying 'Microsoft
Corporation' alone, what does this designate legally?

~~~
matt4077
The law isn’t some mindless algorithm. Do you understand what these terms are
intended to do? Good, so does ever judge.

------
chomp
From a previous comment I've made:

>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.

It is my opinion that even in a branching model, the repo maintainers are not
obtaining a copy of the licensed code. A git branch is only a pointer to a git
object - it's not a full on copy of the source code. So, claiming that a
certain develop branch or tag is the original and master is a copy does not
hold water.

The lerna github repo continues to hold the original code, and their users
obtain copies.

I strongly believe that the repo maintainers do not hold any rights to
sublicense this codebase like they have under the terms of the MIT license,
and further, I accuse them of harming copyleft with this sublicense scheme.

------
dmitrygr
How is this not a copyright violation? If I had contributed under the old
license, they cannot relicense my contribution under a substantially different
license without my consent.

~~~
kalenx
That's specifically not how MIT license works.

They could (even _I_ could) sell it under a commercial licensing without any
legal issues...

~~~
zaarn
Only if you retain the MIT license file with your distribution, that is the
only condition of it.

You could sell it commercially sure, but you can't remove the MIT license file
and replace it with your own EULA, which is what effectively happened here.

