undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointslab3y ago0 comments

Technically, the compiled source published to NPM is MIT licensed (it's minified JS), and the end-user can reverse-engineer it however they like. MIT license does not mean human-readable source afaik :p

^ j/k fyi, since your comment sounded serious so I just wanted to ease the tension. We're planning to open-source the repo, but ATM we have not set up everything to welcome the community yet (CoC, contribution guideline, CI for testing, issue templates, etc...)

BTW, love your passion for open-source and appreciate the criticism (esp your effort in taking a deep look at the stuff we are building). The NPM page is nowhere ready for public view yet. The thought of slapping the TOS and Privacy Policy in the readme is so that if the user installed our CLI and managed to initiate some of the extra undocumented capability, we wouldn't be responsible for any damage to their hardware. But perhaps the MIT license should suffice for that case?

On the other hand, I am asking for feedback on the documentation, so if we can stay on that topic that would be much appreciated :D

0 comments

remram3y ago

My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.

Surely you can see the problem with that.

You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the SERVICE"

labOP3y ago

> you are asking us for free review of a tool

No, just the docs site - Please and thank you :)

> you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.

I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible for disclosing the source in a human-readable form. It simply says the user can use it for free, that the developer is not responsible and there is no warranty.

> this unbelievable gem

Why is it an unbelievable gem? I do not see why it is different from MIT's "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."? Also, thanks for parsing thru the TOS - I created it from a template, thus haven't gotten around to actually making sure it makes sense (i.e a TOS is made to protect me and my company so it made sense to me to just keep anything that would prevent legal trouble).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse