that’s literally the same thing I said.
John C. Welch

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

You say:

That under NPM’s service, once you upload code, you are transferring all rights to that code to them, and this is regardless of your license. Even if you don’t have an open source license, once someone uses your code, and it would be “inconvenient” for you to remove your code from NPM, then they own it, you don’t, and you have ceded all rights to that code.

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.

If you did apply such a license, however, then they can. The part of the terms you quoted in an earlier response advises this:

Other licenses, such as open source licenses, may continue after Your Content is removed. Those licenses may give others, or npm itself, the right to share Your Content with npm Services again.

You say:

If you can’t delete it, you don’t own it.

You’ve said something to this effect at least three times now, so I think I should address it directly.

The truth of the statement depends on the interpretation of “own.”

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).

You say:

No. They don’t own that copy. They have limited rights to that copy because they have to so they can back it up, display different versions, etc. But unless you agree to terms of service saying otherwise, they do not in fact have unlimited rights to that copy of your work.

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.

But again, if it is not illegal (such as when you have applied an open source license), then they can do whatever they want with their copy.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.