271–280 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered that the reason for the outrage is because people don't actually trust Microsoft to do the right thing? I can see this is a mistake, but surely the litany of awful business practices by Microsoft in the past precedes it?
I didn't say anything about the outrage of others. I said a deliberate license change would be unacceptable to employees. I'm no official representative of Microsoft...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS dev here. Thanks for calling this out. I contacted the GH@MS admins to look into this and to consider adding some safeguards to the tooling so this doesn't happen in the future.
And so ther revert the ones done in the past I hope...
The attitude in these threads always boggles my mind. When YOU, your teammates or someone else you know makes a mistake, then it’s just a mistake. But when someone at Microsoft makes a mistake it’s because Microsoft is evil and by extension so is the person who offended. “It’s a big company”, you say. They should have a process! And I’m sad to say, they do/will have a process exactly because of this attitude. Then, e…
This isn’t just one person making a silly mistake. This is a catalogue of failings. Where’s the peer review? Are you suggesting that anything published in the main branch on Microsoft’s GH org gets commit without any branch protection? And as pointed out by others, this isn’t even an isolated case. A healthy org doesn’t blame individuals, it blames failures in process. Thus Microsoft should own this mistake. Stating…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. I worked at MS from 2005-2015. As I recall, there was this huge formal legal process and due diligence around including a single line of open source code. Is that not still the case? Am I remembering it wrong?
Github changed everything. All sorts of automation and open source involvement happened, with new bots and systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered that the reason for the outrage is because people don't actually trust Microsoft to do the right thing? I can see this is a mistake, but surely the litany of awful business practices by Microsoft in the past precedes it?
I didn't say anything about the outrage of others. I said a deliberate license change would be unacceptable to employees. I'm no official representative of Microsoft...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to take "companies doing good" always with a grain of salt. They're profit seeking companies, who act aggressively in their own interests. It doesn't have to be a debate on "good vs evil" I've always hated those terms applied in these contexts, it's childish and for the naive. Fix the problem and move on.
'Profit-seeking companies' begs a common pejorative that actively reduces the variety in the pool of companies. It may not be descriptive of the companies for which this is not an overarching motivation. Many of them really want to make a happy customer by crafting as good a thing possible for the price they charge, and be well by their employees. That said, I can relate the the cynicism especially for the giants. Bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But wouldn't this case fall under the same? Your argument is that a misconfigured FTP server isn't intent to distribute. What if this was a misconfigured fork that was meant to be private but was set public? Not intent to distribute either.
The attitude in these threads always boggles my mind. When YOU, your teammates or someone else you know makes a mistake, then it’s just a mistake. But when someone at Microsoft makes a mistake it’s because Microsoft is evil and by extension so is the person who offended. “It’s a big company”, you say. They should have a process! And I’m sad to say, they do/will have a process exactly because of this attitude. Then, e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wondered why more FOSS projects aren't using CC0 instead of "permissive" licenses like MIT, considering a lot of folks who work in FOSS are against copyright/software patents system in general, and most of them don't really seem to care about attribution. People who release code under MIT not only won't/can't take legal action but they probably won't even bother writing an email to the person who they believe viola…
Because permissive licenses promote proprietary use cases and that's not what FOSS movement aims to achieve.
I do (somewhat but not really) get why people use GPL but that's another story. Here we are only talking about people who use MIT instead of CC0.