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

61–70 of 626 posts

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

#61

Post by nerdponx »

rustc wrote: post #56
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.

It's a question of handing it over and giving them a ToS shield to hide behind, versus making them work for it and risking license violations "in the wild".

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

#62

Post by garaetjjte »

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

Arguably all-caps is harder to read, making these clauses less conspicuous.

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

#63

Post by smorgusofborg »

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…

How does your license prevent someone redistributing source code over GitHub? What does copilot claim as far as licensing rights beyond fair use?

You may be practically limiting copilots use of your code but I don't see any licensing difference if Microsoft hosts Copyright code or scrapes copyright code.

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

#64

Post by notquitehuman »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #2

Seems like it's probably a mistake, did you try to contact them? https://opensource.microsoft.com/ https://twitter.com/OpenAtMicrosoft

Contacting Microsoft is always a mistake. They don’t want to hear from anyone and their process reflects this.

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

#65

Post by judge2020 »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #46
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…

Is the copilot thing true for paid accounts as well?

All public repos were included in the dataset.

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

#66

Post by anonymousab »

marcodiego wrote: post #57
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 deri…

Unless copilot serves as a legally effective "laundering" of gpl code. Which sounds silly, but we're now in a situation where that outcome is super desirable to GitHub/Microsoft.

Another potential outcome is that so many projects could now end up unknowingly using gpl code that enforcement becomes an impractical whack-a-mole, far more so than today. Being told to rework or relicense your project because of copiloted gpl code could easily end up with hobbyists wholesale begrudging the gpl license rather than copilot itself.

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

#67

Post by 37ef_ced3 »

rustc wrote: post #56
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.

Microsoft owns GitHub and you accept their terms of service.

Copilot is trained on public GitHub repositories of any license: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot#Technology

If they scrape your website, that's different.

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

#68

Post by rdpintqogeogsaa »

I observe some confused comments on this page that seem to argue that the MIT license doesn't come with a requirement to keep the copyright line intact (which is demonstrably false, you don't get two paragraphs into the license without finding the attribution requirement).

The part that caught my interest is: How many people consciously picked the MIT license when they actually meant a non-attribution license?

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

#69

Post by xyproto »

gizdan wrote: post #30
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.

Attribution is nice, but for it to be a requirement, it needs to either be specified in the license or be plain old copyright.
Post reply on HN