Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

91–100 of 626 posts

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

#91

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…

This is a feature in fossil since the beginning. And fossil is good enough to be used by sqlite, it could be used by other projects.

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

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

Given that this change was committed to the main branch, if I download the code right now, haven't Microsoft redistributed it?

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

#93

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?

I like your last question. Can you give an example of a "non-attribution license"?

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Easy to read” is not part of the criteria. The definition is explicit.

> "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.

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

#95
Seems like a mistake to me. Microsoft recently adopted one of my Open Source projects and part of the agreement was they would keep the original license. This was a request on their part, I had no choice in the matter. They know what they're doing, I don't think they would do this deliberately. (Licence here: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-gradle/blob/main/LICENSE...)

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

#96

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…

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

Not a very good one - clicking the link produces a download dialog on Firefox (I'm guessing because the website neglects to indicate a Content-Type).

Ironically this is an argument against trying to do everything yourself - you might waste time chasing the long tail of thousands of little details that had been solved many times over elsewhere.

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

#97
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The following is not legal advice and, in particular, has not been tested in court to the best of my knowledge.

You can't use a different typeface, font size or color in a plain text document. That does not mean you have no options. The criterion is that it is “written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person [...] ought to have noticed it.”

Consider the following:

    Nihil  harum  autem  impedit  commodi  ut  occaecati.   Nihil
    quisquam ab molestiae veritatis consectetur.  Quis  molestias
    sunt  facere  tempore  est.  Eum quia quisquam veritatis illo
    minus sint atque ipsa.  Omnis optio ducimus  minus  nemo  non
    deleniti  voluptas.   Blanditiis  nisi  eum  eum beatae fugit
    delectus.  Optio neque sed nostrum veniam eos.  Culpa ut  no‐
    bis  rem  est dignissimos est eum sed.  Occaecati dignissimos
    eveniet odit aut est ipsum minus nisi.
    
    
    
    
                           !! IMPORTANT !!                 
                       DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY              
                                   
        The software is provided "as is", without warran‐
        ty of any kind, express or implied, including but
        not limited to the warranties of merchantability,
        fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringe‐
        ment.  In no event shall the authors or copyright
        holders be liable for any claim, damages or other
        liability, whether in an action of contract, tort
        or  otherwise, arising from, out of or in connec‐
        tion with the software or the use or other  deal‐
        ings in the software.
    
                                                                      
    
    
    Unde sint ab qui ut.  Debitis qui deserunt fugiat aut nihil
    impedit vel saepe.  Et ad voluptas quia.  Omnis libero  ni‐
    hil  perferendis  aut  ab.  Illo et neque voluptatibus.  Et
    animi consequatur enim eius aut at veritatis.  Modi error a
    ratione  tempore  velit inventore.  Accusantium accusantium
    et quam quis nemo id.
This seems rather noticeable to me, gets to the point, and is considerably more readable.

By using the all-caps sparingly, we've made way to draw attention to the heading, then offset the passage with large amounts of whitespace to draw attention to the passage itself. At the same time, this keeps readability of the actual text that you want people to read.

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

#98

This is a clear violation of the MIT License. MSFT can and should get in hot water over this. The copyright doesn’t belong to them, just a license to use the software.

They’ll be in hot water on social media because of a the automation mishap. Then it’ll be corrected. There will be no legal hot water.

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

#99
post #95

Seems like a mistake to me. Microsoft recently adopted one of my Open Source projects and part of the agreement was they would keep the original license. This was a request on their part, I had no choice in the matter. They know what they're doing, I don't think they would do this deliberately. (Licence here: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-gradle/blob/main/LICENSE... )

Microsoft is not a person. And, by its size, is not a single entity with homogeneous values and procedures.

You interacted with one part of Microsoft, maybe we are seeing the works of another part.

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

#100
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Does their ToS give them additional rights to the code uploaded to GitHub? There are several unofficial copies of projects like glibc [1] uploaded by people who definitely do not have the authority to grant any additional rights to the code.

[1]: https://github.com/bminor/glibc

Post reply on HN