No post body was provided.
Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
161–170 of 626 posts
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#162How did it used to go? Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish But now not even bothering with the extend. I’d guess this is a mistake of some kind.
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#163I don't think that just because some "bot" did this Microsoft is to be excused. Someone decided that using a piece of software to automatically alter license files. This is a genuinely stupid idea. And they already fucked up in the same way with the CUPS project. Will they learn without someone taking them to court over this? I don't think so.
I think people should be as forgiving as Microsoft would be if someone “accidentally” changed the licence of Microsoft software and started distributing it.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#164How did it used to go? Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish But now not even bothering with the extend. I’d guess this is a mistake of some kind.
Dismiss, Embrace, Extend and Extinguish - if I remember the early histories of Netscape and Java accurately.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can "donate" someone else's code, knowing Microsoft will violate a use-with-attribution license. You can do it, but it's WRONG. Copilot is trained on public GitHub repositories of any license: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot#Technology We must all stop using GitHub.
I wonder what kind of language you would need to add to your license in order to explicitly forbid the ingestion of your code by Copilot and/or like projects.
IANAL, but I have written licenses for that purpose. [1] (I'm trying to get them reviewed by a lawyer, but can't afford to; maybe I'll do a GoFundMe.)
What I did is say that if you feed copyrighted software to an algorithm that itself outputs software, then the license applies to the output. This covers the output of compilers and such, but it would also cover Copilot in my opinion. We'll see what a lawyer says.
However, even with a license, I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft would just put it through GitHub anyway because finding them out would be extraordinarily hard.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#166The 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.
Even if Microsoft currently only uses GitHub-hosted code as an input to Copilot, their theory of the legality does not depend on code being hosted there and applies to any code they can get their hands on. The idea that hosting code publicly at some non-GitHub location is going to keep it out of Copilot is not well justified.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Quoted post unavailable.
I am not, and have never been a Microsoft employee.
You can search online for my name / username to find my open-source contribution history, if you would like.
I hope that sufficiently answers your query.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the scare quotes around mistake? Are you implying that it's intentional? Or negligence? It seems like nobody noticed the CUPS license change until now, so it's irrelevant, right?
How is it not intentional? To me it seems very clear that someone designed this bot to specifically alter the LICENSE file so that it matches some sort of predefind Microsoft file. Edit: To give a bit more nuance, I would guess that the actual bot changing the LICENSE files is not a mistake, but working as intended. What could, however, be a mistake is thinking that licenses can be legally overwritten. It wouldn't be…
Because a bot like this could never used on internal libraries that are about to be open sourced?
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#169The 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.
Ok, but this is still illegal, right?
Yes, people make mistakes. Sometimes, mistakes turn out to be illegal.
But if you're one of the largest corporations in USA, the law tends to go easy on you for making accidental mistakes.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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…
No post body was provided.