Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

371–380 of 626 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened here was obviously a mistake. The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. The thread would have been a lot more fun if we could have spent it talking about what prompted your team to build this thingy, and bounce other people's approaches to the same problem off, and ma…

> The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. Another good reminder that Hacker News is not above assuming the worst and gathering pitchfork mobs like any other social media. The issue looked like a mistake from the start to anyone paying attention (committed by a bot, changes were c…

Especially here, when the smoking gun is a change to an MIT licensed project. One of the torch-holding commenters remarked that developers at Microsoft ought to know enough about how licenses work to know what a big deal this was. Physician, heal thyself.

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

#372
post #254

Quoted post unavailable.

Embrace, extend, extinguish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

I did warn everyone that Microsoft has gotten smarter and is 'using' open-source and Linux for EEE. We know how they embrace and extend.

Extinguish basically now means:

'We fork the best open-source tools and they sit on our cloud and are more secure and scale better than if you self-hosted it, and is completely free to use.'

Paid competitors can't compete or will struggle to compete with free, given that it is open-source and more secure and is sitting on the cloud and scales. Lastly, nobody got fired for buying products with Microsoft® stamps.

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

#373
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

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

#374

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]

#375

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…

What happened here was obviously a mistake. The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. The thread would have been a lot more fun if we could have spent it talking about what prompted your team to build this thingy, and bounce other people's approaches to the same problem off, and ma…

No post body was provided.

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

#376
Makes me wonder if Microsoft GitHub should not make it a more specific action to relicense a repo.

That would solve any ambiguities around the script Microsoft wrote.

"Are you sure you want to change the license?" Yes / No.

Perhaps a specific API call when you are doing it with a script.

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

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really sorry you had to deal with this during the festive period. I certainly understand how scandalous this looks to crowds like Hacker News. But this seems a little bit blown out of proportion, as if Microsoft just forked the kernel or something and put their name on the license.

>I certainly understand how scandalous this looks to crowds like Hacker News. I don't. I'm with the Microsoft employee who was pissed at how people think it's edgy to diss on Microsoft. What were the chances that Microsoft was openly doing that? Some dude who has now deleted his post said Microsoft was trying to "create a monopoly of web IDEs". These are clearly people who barely have a passing knowledge of how Micro…

I don't know if you're aware of other not-that-ancient incidents like these?

https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180715225433/https://threadrea...

It took significant public outrage and press coverage before either of those were even acknowledged, a long time after.

> What were the chances that Microsoft was openly doing that?

After reading the above, is it really that edgy to be assuming the worst? If it's truly just recurring instances of different rogue employees, doesn't that speak to a systemic and/or cultural issue that needs to be addressed with additional internal safeguards and/or deterrents to prevent it from happening again?

To the credit of the relevant team here, today this was promptly addressed as soon as it got their attention. But it will take more than that to set to rest decades of precedence.

(I did not partake in the flaming and don't find it constructive or beneficial; just saying I have full understanding of the suspicion and understand that MS are still on probation)

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

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened here was obviously a mistake. The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. The thread would have been a lot more fun if we could have spent it talking about what prompted your team to build this thingy, and bounce other people's approaches to the same problem off, and ma…

Quoted post unavailable.

Are you still trying to make this a thing? I'm pretty sure it's over.

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

#379
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I reached out to Jeff Wilcox who runs the Open Source Programs Office now earlier (see Tweet https://twitter.com/berndverst/status/1474789173882089472?s=... ). He since commented on this post with a lot more detail.

He wrote a great response. Not many people I know would stand in front of a online mob and say "It's code that I wrote". And then fix it on Christmas!

While I'm glad this got resolved so quickly, I'm slightly ashamed of myself and the HN community for how we handled this. In hindsight the outrage was wildly out of proportion for a simple bug.

I'll make a mental note to do better in 2022.

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

#380
post #154

I 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.

> Will they learn without someone taking them to court over this?

Only on hackernews I see this level of crazyness. You need to reduce your caffein intake drastically.

Post reply on HN