Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed] • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#21

Post by ignoramous » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #13

So you can't do that? I do it all the time when I fork something.

One can add their copyrights, relicense in some cases, but absolutely cannot remove existing copyrights. I don't think any FOSS license (save for the "public domain" ones) allow for that.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#22

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

ghjklpoiuy wrote: post #17

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#23

Post by throwaway858 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

dpratt wrote: post #18

zach_garwood wrote: post #3

I didn't think code was copyrightable in the first place.

Any work, no matter how trivial, is eligible for copyright as long as it is an original artifact with a distinct identity.

Copyright laws vary wildly across countries and jurisdictions

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#24

Post by zenexer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

akyoan wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

It doesn’t matter that it was an accident; it’s still a serious issue that needs to be corrected and deserves an upvote. It’s also quite curious, and I appreciate hearing about the incident.

Incidents don’t need to be malicious to be newsworthy or intriguing.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#25

Post by zenexer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #13

So you can't do that? I do it all the time when I fork something.

Correct. You don’t own the code just because you forked it. The original copyright holders retain ownership, and you must abide by their license. You can’t swap out the license unless they explicitly allow you to do so.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#26

Post by akyoan » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

zenexer wrote: post #24

akyoan wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

It doesn’t matter that it was an accident; it’s still a serious issue that needs to be corrected and deserves an upvote. It’s also quite curious, and I appreciate hearing about the incident. Incidents don’t need to be malicious to be newsworthy or intriguing.

No post body was provided.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#27

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #13

So you can't do that? I do it all the time when I fork something.

That can get you into seriously hot water, I would suggest you stop doing that until you've had some interaction with an IP lawyer.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#28

Post by matt123456789 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

CyberShadow wrote: post #8

The account which did the change has this description: > This is the open source management service account used for performing key GitHub operations on behalf of Microsoft employees and users. Combined with the nonsense README change, this looks like a bot mis-use accident. Edit: to clarify, in no way am I saying that this is a "honest mistake" which does not deserve scrutiny.

Ok, but this is still illegal, right?

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#29

Post by emilfihlman » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

dpratt wrote: post #18

zach_garwood wrote: post #3

I didn't think code was copyrightable in the first place.

Any work, no matter how trivial, is eligible for copyright as long as it is an original artifact with a distinct identity.

Not true,

    u64 add26562(u64 value)
    {
        return(value+26562);
    }

is not copyrightable.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#30

Post by gizdan » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

CyberShadow wrote: post #8

The account which did the change has this description: > This is the open source management service account used for performing key GitHub operations on behalf of Microsoft employees and users. Combined with the nonsense README change, this looks like a bot mis-use accident. Edit: to clarify, in no way am I saying that this is a "honest mistake" which does not deserve scrutiny.

Which is fine, and surely an honest mistake. Automation is great, but the way I see it is, how many other projects have been forked and automatically re-licensed, and then profited from without proper attribution? An accident still needs to be flagged, and still needs to be corrected. They also need to be learned from and avoided in the future.