Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

41–50 of 626 posts

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

#41
post #4

They changed the copyright holder on this fork, but left the MIT license in place. How does this harm anyone?

>> They changed the copyright holder on this fork, but left the MIT license in place. How does this harm anyone?

Here you go:

https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript

Just fork TypeScript, change the copyright holder to yourself, and do what you want with it. I sure Microsoft won't mind.

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

#42

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?

Since MIT has this line:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud if MS reverses the change and/or simply appends the original MIT license above their MIT license (since MS does indeed have '5 commits ahead' of the origin repo, all of those changes are copyright MS but still MIT licensed). They could even simply have a file called 'LICENSE2' with the original notice, if they can't easily exclude this repo from the bot.

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

#43
post #13

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

Hey if anyone considering down voting this guy - it is important question as a lot of people might not understand those things.

I see it as a honest question.

Instead of voting down, vote up so more people can read replies and see that it is not something that should be done.

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

#44
The larger issue is that anyone using GitHub is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot.

In return, you receive hosting from GitHub.

The writing is on the wall. You MUST host your own code on a stand-alone website.

Here is an example. This Go program (a compiler) generates and serves its own website: https://NN-512.com

It runs on a Linode shared CPU cloud instance that costs $5 per month: https://www.linode.com/pricing

Another example, look at what Fabrice Bellard does: https://bellard.org

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

#45
post #37

Since they also removed a full stop at the end... What is the point of using all caps? For me it makes legal texts like these really annoying to read. I'm not a native English speaker, is that really correct English writing? Aren't there clear rules when to use capitalization? Like, at the beginning of sentences. Feels like they are abusing the language. Can they just lower case the paragraphs, to make things more co…

https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/all-caps-legal-agreements/amp...

It’s legally important

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

#46

The larger issue is that anyone using GitHub is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot. In return, you receive hosting from GitHub. The writing is on the wall. You MUST host your own code on a stand-alone website. Here is an example. This Go program (a compiler) generates and serves its own website: https://NN-512.com It runs on a Linode shared CPU cloud instance that costs $5 per month: h…

Is the copilot thing true for paid accounts as well?

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

#48

The larger issue is that anyone using GitHub is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot. In return, you receive hosting from GitHub. The writing is on the wall. You MUST host your own code on a stand-alone website. Here is an example. This Go program (a compiler) generates and serves its own website: https://NN-512.com It runs on a Linode shared CPU cloud instance that costs $5 per month: h…

If you treat copilot like a human, and you ask it a question ( like "#find median of list") that human either (A) will put together all the things they've learned over thousands of hours of simply looking at code in the programming language and how the syntax works, then provide a new code block, or (B) remember "oh, I remember this extract string of text and what comes after it. Here's the next 10 lines from that snippet". In that B scenario, would the human be infringing on the original's copyright? Arguably yes; but is situation (A) also copyright infringement, or is it like getting code help from a friend?

In these situations, whether it be originating from a human or robot, the knowledge comes from looking at public code on GitHub and it's always been a risk that your public code might not be used with proper attribution at some point. Think about how many OSS projects have core code and algorithms copied daily by companies with no public name and keep all of their source code private - it's surely caused more damage than CoPilot ever will.

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

#49
post #26
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Bot-driven crimes would be crimes nonetheless.

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

#50
post #37

Since they also removed a full stop at the end... What is the point of using all caps? For me it makes legal texts like these really annoying to read. I'm not a native English speaker, is that really correct English writing? Aren't there clear rules when to use capitalization? Like, at the beginning of sentences. Feels like they are abusing the language. Can they just lower case the paragraphs, to make things more co…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN