No post body was provided.
Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
471–480 of 626 posts
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#472I 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…
So, you are adding licenses automatically? This seems pretty risky. Why not just prevent commits that don't have a license? Shouldn't there be a human somewhere in that loop?
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#473What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…
> I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open…
This was a while back, but Tim Cook apologized[0] after a poorly received rollout of Apple Maps. That said, I applaud this response and agree that more like it is needed across the industry.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/28/tim-cook-apologizes-for-ap...
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#474What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…
Perhaps I'm the one misinterpreting your comment, and the others have it right.
I'm assuming you mean open as in communication. Apple basically is a stone wall, facebook just spouts empty platitudes, google processes are opaque and unyielding (unless you know a someone or raise a massive community response on social media), but Microsoft continues to be staffed by humans.
They aren't a shining pillar of FOSS, but they've taken some good steps in the right direction in the past few years. And of all of them, user feedback, support, and escalation seems to still be handled by people instead of algorithms
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 boi…
I think a key reason that corps do try to avoid admitting fault, is because in a lawsuit that can be used as evidence for a guilty verdict in a civil lawsuit in some of the most slam dunk ways.
If we remove this feature of common law legal systems, I think you will get far more admissions of fault like this one.
If you hurt people, organizations, etc for admitting their mistakes, they're going to stop doing it.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just bots, it's real people: https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/8100595a3a3a6d5c7d0...
How is this commit in May related to the current thread? Your post doesn't contain enough information for me to understand your meaning.
Apparently that's a commit made by a human re-assigning copyright of a forked FOSS project [0] to MSFT, presumably without attribution [1]
[0] https://openprinting.github.io/cups
[1] MSFT moved attribution to NOTICE file, which is cleaner, but trips people who aren't paying attention: https://github.com/microsoft/cups/blob/main/NOTICE
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#477What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…
Apple is active in their OSS work although, if you go look at their OSS project forms and such. Look at webkit, swift, etc.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Quoted post unavailable.
Lets also get rid of web search engines while we are at it, or transparent caching CDNs /s
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#479I 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…
Please consider https://github.com/microsoft/azuredatastudio/issues/102#issu...
>SQL Operations Studio was built on the back of many open source projects that all use the MIT License for a reason: it's the right way to keep moving the community forward, empowering your users to do cool stuff and build useful things for the community.
>We're just asking SQL Operations Studio to use the same license that Visual Studio Code does.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it remotely possible to not understand you cannot automatically overwrite a license file with your own. If you yourself were creating such automation wouldn't that be one of the first and most obvious things you would think of?
If you think of the use case of forks, sure. If you think of employees creating new repos in the org--- smash the correct LICENSE in there ASAP. The problem is that forking a different repo into the org triggers the logic of a "new repository".
A simple solution prior to writing to a file in this case is to check if it already exists. It shouldn’t matter what triggers this bot if it’s programmed safe and idempotent.