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

Post by soheil » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #256

soheil wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment highlights the ignorance of a lot of people in this thread jumping to conclusion and view MS instantly as an aggressor and themselves as victims of the obvious and horrible crime of copyright infringement. A) Do you know it was not an honest mistake? B) Why a complete understanding of esoteric legal copyright laws created by non-programmers all of a sudden so important to a mainly programmer HN audience?

Are you joking? Programming is all about intellectual property. A complete understanding of copyright laws is important for anyone in the tech industry.

Post by tbrock » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

verst wrote: post #214

throwaway277432 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is their process. Very hard to argue these are all mistakes: ippsample (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/ippsample/commit/938bff17c72868... huggingface-transformers (Apache -> MIT): https://github.com/microsoft/huggingface-transformers/commit... health-cards-tests (MIT changed) https://github.com/microsoft/health-cards-tests/commit/5649b... CUPS (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit…

This is a bot that is supposed to configure the right license when employees start a new repo in the Microsoft GitHub org. It seems the automation is also triggered when Repos are forked into the Microsoft GitHub org which isn't correct behavior. This isn't a deliberate action. If it were plenty of employees (myself included) would be outraged. I assume it's a bug in the bot - an edge case that was not considered. It…

Post by forgotpwd16 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

CyberShadow wrote: post #96

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…

> 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…

Post by lostsoul8282 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

osolo wrote: post #178

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…

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

dado3212 wrote: post #253

bakul wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is running a bot to change copyright notices a /mistake/? > Full disclosure: I work for MS It is difficult to see the reality distortion field you are in from the inside.

when $new_repo in $msft_github: echo $standard_license > LICENSE.md Could just be normal practices, and doesn’t check if a license already exists because it’s usually handling non-forked OSS repos. What’s the phrase? “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”.