Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 626 posts

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

#51

Post by feanaro »

akyoan wrote: post #26
zenexer wrote: 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.

The mistake is not harmless. Corporations don't get to hide behind their bots' mistakes. Microsoft needs to reverse the change, explain why it happened and implement precautions so it doesn't happen again.

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

#52

Post by 999900000999 »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #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: h…

To be honest, can't humans go through various open source repositories and copy the bits they like?

If you don't like that,don't release your code as open source. I'm not going to host my open source projects on my own website. That's just hard, it's much more difficult to get people to check it out if it's on Broblog.net

I personally don't believe extremely short code snippets, like the ones copilot tends to copy are problematic.

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

#53

Post by onei »

fiatjaf wrote: post #13

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

You (or possibly your employer) own the copyright to the code you produce. And you are fine to say something like "copyright $me $yearIMadeACommit". What you can't do is claim copyright on work you did not produce or remove existing copyright notices.

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

#54

Post by anonymousab »

arbitrage wrote: post #20
shp0ngle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that’s still breaking the license

so take them to court.

A supercorp will have far more resources to succeed in courts than an individual person, such that the courts are not a fair avenue for resolving disputes. The court of public opinion is, unfortunately, far more accessible to the individual.

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

#55

Post by feanaro »

brianwawok wrote: post #45
brisad wrote: 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

Your text says it's not. What's legally important is to make certain parts of the text conspicuous.

Using all-caps is one way of achieving this, but there are other options, such as using a different typeface, font size or colour.

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

#56

Post by rustc »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #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: h…

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

How would self hosting your code prevent Microsoft/GitHub from using it in the Copilot training dataset? If using content from GitHub irrespective of their license to train Copilot is legal, so is training from code available on your website.

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

#57

Post by marcodiego »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #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: h…

> The larger issue is that anyone using Github is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot.

I think this can only be valid of Github's terms of use clearly specify that or the chosen license allows it.

I actually see copilot benefiting GPL projects: suppose a programmer uses copilot to develop a proprietary software and copilot regurgitates GPL'ed code: now the proprietary software is a derivative work and must be GPL'ed too.

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

#58

Post by anonymousab »

emilfihlman wrote: post #29
dpratt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that function always returned, say, the AACS key then it would likely be violating copyright in the US. Regardless of whether it was the result of a computation or statically defined.

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

#59

Post by nerdponx »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #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: h…

"Not Github" is also a good place to start.

I am a happy Sourcehut customer. Roughly the same cost as a VPS, but comes with tech support.

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

#60

Post by Ensorceled »

feanaro wrote: post #55
brianwawok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/all-caps-legal-agreements/amp... It’s legally important

Your text says it's not. What's legally important is to make certain parts of the text conspicuous . Using all-caps is one way of achieving this, but there are other options, such as using a different typeface, font size or colour.

How do you use a different typeface in a plain text file?
Post reply on HN