Conversation

Replying to and
The spirit of open source as a whole is definitely not public ownership / control. There's a small subset of open source software that's public domain software but not owning the copyright over it doesn't mean that someone doesn't own a certain repository developing the software.
1
1
Replying to and
this seems like is / ought there is nothing, legally or practically, stopping a maintainer from doing this I don't think that's the spirit of open source; the project can be easily forked and re-hosted but users weren't doing that because they trusted the ecosystem
1
2
Replying to and
Open source is making the source code available for anyone to use for any purpose even if that purpose is mass murdering people. The spirit of open source is devaluing labour so that corporations can build software more cheaply. This person didn't realize that getting into it.
1
It's their own fault they released they software under an open source license but I think most open source maintainers have felt this way at one point or another. I don't really think they did anything particularly malicious or terrible. It wouldn't pass any basic smoke test.
2
Replying to and
If you blindly update to new versions and deploy without testing, they did you a service by showing you that what you're doing is completely broken even if you do trust your dependencies. They didn't hide a backdoor or trap that triggers later. It just spams nonsense on loading.
1
1
Replying to and
you could say this to justify basically anything, is breaking apps really ok because they should have known better? yes, they were trying to make a point and not steal data or whatever but it's still damaging even if all it does is break a log ingestor
1
Seems like the reason he has no money is because he spent everything he had on precious metals hoarded in his house. When it burned down while he was making bombs with someone, the police stole all of it. Open source supply chain security is really something uniquely special.