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

131–140 of 626 posts

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

#131

Post by sicromoft »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #105
webmaven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid. If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does that count as redistribution?

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by chongli »

judge2020 wrote: post #48
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…

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 sn…

As a human, if you memorize a book word-for-word and later reproduce whole passages of the book in your own writing then that is considered plagiarism and copyright infringement. It does not matter that you stored it in your human memory before reproducing it.

The test to use is to imagine you’re writing an essay in college. If your essay contains unattributed passages from another work then the professor will not care that you memorized them rather than just copying and pasting the text. In order to be in the clear you need to properly quote and cite the original author.

GitHub copilot does not provide attribution. All it does is obfuscate the original source to make attribution impossible. Copyright lawyers ought to have a field day with this one.

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

#133

Post by shp0ngle »

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.

This is very obviously a mistake and I don’t know how can anyone assume otherwise.

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

#134

Post by CyberShadow »

37ef_ced3 wrote: post #130
CyberShadow wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> It works for everyone except you. The Content-Type is right there, in the header.

I don't know what to tell you. It's not there.

https://dump.cy.md/9b2a31fa5184397159fe42a85c197242/16404476...

It is there if I check with cURL, though.

Edit: looks like this bug is triggered by the absence of Accept-Encoding in the request. When the server compresses the response, it neglects to include the Content-Type of the compressed content.

> You defend Microsoft, here and in other parts of this thread, as they sell the work of open source authors without attribution and in violation of explicit license statements in the code.

I did no such thing. Please stop.

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

#135

Post by johnklos »

This is a perfect example of a huge company using the cover of bullshit to do whatever they want.

"Oops. We f*d up? Well, you can't talk with a human unless you pay us lots of money. Oh - you don't have money for a lawyer? Tough. Good luck getting through our layers of trained monkeys."

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

#136

Post by erinnh »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #105
webmaven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid. If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does that count as redistribution?

I would say that it isnt, because you had no intent to redistribute it.

But you cant make that argument here, as its a public repo, as such Microsoft did have the intent to redistribute.

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

#137

Post by ognarb »

noodlesUK wrote: post #84

The relevant Reddit thread also points out that MSFT has illegally relicensed Apache licensed Apple software in the same way. Apple is very litigious… https://github.com/microsoft/cups

I created an issue in the original cups repo: https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups/issues/315

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

#138

Post by nerdponx »

999900000999 wrote: post #127
nerdponx wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same fallacy behind the argument that we shouldn't care about privacy, because it's always been possible to track and surveil individuals.

Do you want to write open source software or not? Here. def add( x, y): return x + y I don't want to live in some dystopia where we have dozens of lawyers deciding who owns that above code snippet. If Amazon wants to use that snippet, fine, you can use it, etc. All Co Pilot does is optimize taking code snippets from different sources.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

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

#139

Post by emilengler »

leephillips wrote: post #112
emilengler wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The larger issue is that anyone using GitHub is donating their work for re-use without attribution through Copilot. Wrong. Lets say a GPL project is not hosted on GitHub officially. I can easily setup a mirror for it though on GitHub as the GPL doesn't prevent me from doing it... Point is that anyone can put my work on GitHub, even if I don't want to.Assuming the project is under a free license though.

How does that make what 37ef_ced3 said wrong? I’m not following your logic.

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

Because this does not prevent having the code to land on GitHub at the of the day assuming it is published under a free license.

Now it depends on how you interpret the "MUST". My logic only makes sense if you consider it to a dogmatic-like prevention.

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

#140

Post by bayindirh »

ognarb wrote: post #137
noodlesUK wrote: post #84

The relevant Reddit thread also points out that MSFT has illegally relicensed Apache licensed Apple software in the same way. Apple is very litigious… https://github.com/microsoft/cups

I created an issue in the original cups repo: https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups/issues/315

I was contemplating a PR with original license, but your course of action is much better.
Post reply on HN