|
|
|
|
|
by bastawhiz
3746 days ago
|
|
Claiming that users would be confused when installing the Kik package is a bit of a bad excuse. Installing a package without knowing what it is or does is simply nonsensical. There's no way of knowing even _how to use_ the package without looking up information about it beforehand. Anyone seriously installing a software package using a developer tool without knowing anything other than the package's name is a fool. Additionally, the lawyers in question did not seem to want to put a new package online, they simply wanted to take down the existing one. This does not seem to be the intent of the name resolution policy. This was a bad call on the part of the NPM team, and they should reevaluate how they arbitrate these issues. |
|
npm and Kik did most-everything right. The problem was in unpublishing already published tags. Once a tag is published, it shouldn't be able to be unpublished except in the most extenuating circumstances (perhaps a brand-new tag that inadvertently included PII). After a name changes hands, the new owner shouldn't be able to publish a new build in any of the major versions the previous owner tagged. Moreover, wholesale unpublishing modules shouldn't be allowed for the exact reasons this incident demonstrated. Based on npm's response, it sounds like they've learned that.
[1]: https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breakin...