No, it isn’t the same as what you said.
Philip Chung

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in’s terms of use that would permit them to continue to distribute your code if you did not apply an open source license. So, that is incorrect, and I don’t believe I’ve ever made any assertion to that effect.

They most certainly straight up did. If you deleting your code would cause problems for others, they’ll not allow you to do that. That’s their response to the entire left pad drama: to make it harder to delete things other people rely on. They made precisely zero mention of license when they said that.

In one sense, owning a copy, this is correct. If you cannot delete a copy off a computer, you probably don’t own that computer (and by extension the copy on the computer).
But in another sense, owning the copyright, this is incorrect. You may own the copyright to a package. But if you distribute this package to the public under an open source license, you cannot delete the copies other people have downloaded, nor can you delete the copies that, GitHub, PyPI, or any other service has in its possession (unless of course they have a contractual obligation to delete them).

Then, again, what you are saying, and not “in effect” is that the instant you upload anything to an online service, you have, regardless of license, given them that thing and they can do whatever they want, because they own that copy. You can dance around it until the cows come home, but that is the point of what you are saying: once it’s on the internet, it is effectively in the public domain.

Open source does not abrogate copyright. Well, until now. (and you’re really assuming all open source licenses are GPL/BSD I think)

Yes, they do, in the same way I own a knife even though I don’t have unlimited rights to stab people with it. They own the copy insofar as they own its physical manifestation on a storage device. They are free to move it within their premises or destroy it as they see fit. However, they cannot do anything illegal with it, such as committing copyright infringement.

That is without a doubt the worst analogy I’ve seen. Ever. It is nonsensical. Please stop if that’s the best you can do.

And no, they don’t *own* the copy in that case. Words mean things. They have *licensed* the copy and that license gives them specific rights as to what they can and can not do. Which is why the terms of service for Facebook and Deviant Art are as peculiar as they are, because they have to have certain specific rights to do the things they need to do so that the sites are robust.

But we see where the problem comes, and it is rooted in your very odd definition of ownership, which reduces the concept to nothing. Again, if I own something, I can remove it from a service, and that service cannot use it. The service, if I license in a way that allows, can make their OWN copy, but that is now THEIR copy. Not mine. If I remove my repository from Github, and Github un-removes it because it would be inconvenient to someone else, that is not github making a copy of it and hosting it as a separate entity. The difference here is important.

(We’ll leave off the fact that you’ve reduced all of open source down to a remarkably narrow definition. I have my limits of how much I feel like interacting with that world.)

My wife is a professional artist. If Deviant Art tried to pull what you’re saying they can, pretty much every professional artist on deviant art would pull their shit, and sue DA into a crater. and win. licensed rights are not ownership. Probably the reason they use different words for the concepts.

Look, I get it, you’re into open source and like everyone else i’ve dealt with in that world, you’re literally incapable of allowing anyone to criticize it for any reason. But you’ve yet to make a single cogent argument that comes close to showing NPM’s actions with regard to Azer as anything but fucked up.

Now, you can try coming up with a better argument, or you can stop trying to convince me that two different things are the same things. It’s up to you.