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

141–150 of 626 posts

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

#141

Post by kelnos »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #76
notquitehuman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1) What's your source for that assertion 2) Assuming it's even true, what should this person do instead? 3) What do you think the outcome would be if this person did contact Microsoft? Since it's a mistake, I assume something bad?

> Assuming it's even true, what should this person do instead?

Since this is copyright infringement, the copyright holder could file a DMCA takedown notice.

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

#142

Post by colejohnson66 »

shp0ngle wrote: post #133
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.

Because “Microsoft Bad”. When a company gets big enough, there will always be a portion of the population you can never please, and Microsoft reached that size a long time ago.

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

#143

Post by TrueDuality »

rdpintqogeogsaa wrote: post #68

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 think most people explicitly choose MIT for this. It's a very very free license, allowing you to do pretty much anything you want with the code. Among the opensource developers I know the one thing they consistently care about is attribution for the work they've done for free.

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

#144

Post by 88j88 »

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 guess this is grounds for a valid DMCA take down? They are obviously breaking license agreement, effectively stealing copyrighted software.

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

#145

Post by cute_boi »

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?

Yes, it counts as distribution. Why you would even stripped copyrights form?

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

#146

Post by kstrauser »

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.

- You’re at work looking for an appropriately licensed library to do X.

- You find one with an MIT license and use it.

- Oops! It was really GPL and now you have some undesirable options to face.

Microsoft’s had a few “accidents” lately that remind me too much of their old war on the GPL.

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

#147

Post by colejohnson66 »

sicromoft wrote: post #131
phendrenad2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

No. If you hack into my company and siphon out an EXE for an internal tool that uses GPL licensed code, you are not entitled to the source code of the package because the company did not “distribute” it to you; you took it without any right to have it.

There’s a whole philosophical debate we can have where we quibble over the definitions of words as they deal with technology, but the (US) courts generally don’t care about technicalities. An analogy is stolen property. If you purchase something that is stolen property, you have (almost) no legal right to it; the courts will often order its seizure for return to the original owner. By “hacking” (according to the CFAA), you “stole” the EXE.

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

#148

Post by CyberShadow »

kenjackson wrote: post #103
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.

No judgment from me since I suspect it is also an accident and I’ve made enough in my life that I don’t get super judgy in most cases. But what purpose is there for a bot that forks and makes changes like adding template files? Copyright aside, I don’t understand the value of this bot.

If I were to guess, it would be that the action performed here (or the basis of the code implementing this action) was intended to be done on internal Microsoft repositories that should be open-sourced.

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

#149

Post by leephillips »

emilengler wrote: post #139
leephillips wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The statement you tagged as “wrong” was:

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

Why is this wrong?

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

#150

Post by 37ef_ced3 »

CyberShadow wrote: post #134
37ef_ced3 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compre…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN