Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed] • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by beckman466 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

gautamcgoel wrote: post #333

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

A lot of commenters are sharpening their pitchforks, but this comment, in my opinion, makes it very likely that it was an honest mistake. Amazing what taking personal responsibility and earnestly apologizing can do to restore trust and credibility!

No post body was provided.

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

#342

Post by ognarb » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

throwaway277432 wrote: post #247

verst wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. So these are in fact all mistakes. I looked at some of the other forked repos (95 out of 4.5K repos) and all the human commits from MS I saw seem to care about getting the licenses right. So it really is just a broken bot. I hope the bot can be fixed soon and I'm going to put my figurative pitchfork down now.

Look at https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/8100595a3a3a6d5c7d0... . This was done by an human.

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

#343

Post by blihp » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:48 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…

Microsoft is a rather special case of a company that has virtually no goodwill in the open source world. These are the dividends that result from statements and actions over decades. So when something like this occurs, the default reaction is often 'of course... it is Microsoft after all'.

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

#344

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

m3047 wrote: post #304

chris_wot wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can change the copyright ownership from an individual to themselves, then they could (however unlikely) change the license on subsequent revisions to no longer provide the software free of charge, and could prevent anyone from using the software and associated documentation files in an unrestricted form.

I think the OP is playing 20 questions for their own entertainment. I think what they're not telling you is that there's nothing to prevent someone from making a closed-source product incorporating something which is MIT licensed (but they're still supposed to give credit where due). That's also not the whole story. Squirrel!

If they don't know the answer to the question I actually asked, all they have to do is not answer it. I object to the notion that I'm the one playing games here.

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

#345

Post by faangiq » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:48 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…

MS and other bigcos have a history of being evil. It’s the correct assumption.

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

#346

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

m3047 wrote: post #300

tptacek wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What financial benefits do they stand to gain by changing the name on an MIT license?

They're asserting ownership. By asserting ownership they're converting good will and assuming the mantle of authority, which will sway plenty of weak-minded people: hey it's Microsoft.

I see how that gets them a C-grade Mastodon lyric, but not how it gets them a nickel. Did I ask this question in a particularly weird way? The responses it's getting are a little confusing.

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

#347

Post by xigoi » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

akyoan wrote: post #190

frob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bots don't steal licenses; people who program bots steal licenses. It's the latter action that's being addressed here.

Quoted post unavailable.

If I accidentally write a program that deletes all files on your computer, are you not going to hold me accountable?

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

#348

Post by _zzaw » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

gautamcgoel wrote: post #333

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

A lot of commenters are sharpening their pitchforks, but this comment, in my opinion, makes it very likely that it was an honest mistake. Amazing what taking personal responsibility and earnestly apologizing can do to restore trust and credibility!

Yeah, I think this is an example of addressing a mistake that other companies should take note of. I don’t trust Microsoft-sized corporations as a matter of principle, and I don’t typically give them the benefit of the doubt, but when one of their own engineers explains in human-readable terms what specifically happened—on a holiday, no less—I’m impressed enough to believe him. Some PR flack showing up with vague boilerplate about how Microsoft values the open-source community and they’ll look into it would only have encouraged more outrage.

I always appreciate communication that acknowledges I’m a person, not a data point or a customer. I wish more companies ditched the greasy PR approach and allowed folks like Jeff to do their talking for them.

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

#349

Post by victorvscn » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:55 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…

I feel like the only people with an attitude against Microsoft these days are teenagers trying to look edgy and critical thinking or pretending they are insiders.

I don't work for Microsoft.

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

#350

Post by sarahnovotny » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

This is my favorite part of the culture change which is happening at Microsoft.

We are still working on it. And, it will take time.

Jeff's team, my team, the java team whose forked repo this unintentionally highlighted are working with dozens of other teams every week. Satya says we're all in on open source.

Hold Jeff and Me and all the leaders of Microsoft to that vision. Keep us accountable. And, know this takes time. Let's make technology and humanity healthier and more sustainable in 2022.