So can you point me to where this license says you cannot modify this code? Or that by accepting distribution of one version of this code, you are obligated to distribute future versions?
You can't hide behind "The license doesn't say he has to play nice, so you can't complain about him not playing nice", then say it's unfair that npm don't go behind their license and TOS obligations to host his spite version.
Because they are interfering with _his_ distribution of the code. They are free to distribute it separately and make changes in those cases, but instead they are essentially re-writing history without the knowledge of the package owner, and for reasons that are largely editorial and, I think, unprecedented. They are interfering with his right to distribution, essentially. I know that in a slimy, technical way, you are correct, but I think it is relevant if at the end of the day it is practically impossible to distribute code without some unauthorized third party modifying it in transit, essentially. The implication is we need to start running our own git servers.
I feel that replacing a package with one that doesn't fulfil the same needs in a patch update because you feel that "no warranty implied" justified it is as much "slimy, technical" use of that license.
Again, if Marak is going to rely on technicalities, I don't blame npm for treating him with as much good faith as he treated his users.
