Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 626 posts

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

#531

Post by mlyle »

wise_young_man wrote: post #480
mlyle wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuking the existing LICENSE file and replacing with the canonical one is a good move when it's your own developers' work. They could easily have picked "a" MIT license or screwed up the copyright string, and getting this normalized from the moment the repository is published is important.

But it's important that this -not- get applied to outside work from forks.

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

#532

Post by dang »

bakul wrote: post #183
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…

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.

This breaks several of the HN guidelines and crosses into personal attack. We ban accounts that post like that, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#533

Post by dang »

beervirus wrote: post #194
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…

Y’all are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt any more than obviously-evil companies like Facebook are.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29501677).

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

We particularly don't want the online callout/shaming culture here. nhttps://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

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

#534

Post by fault1 »

petilon wrote: post #382
fault1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't that covered under a fair use 'right to quote'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote

If all of the useful information in a web page is mined and given away by a third party in an automated fashion, such that the copyright holder is deprived of revenue, then that's not the intention of 'right to quote'.

I'm pretty sure Google pays these types of content publishers (like Reuters) very handsomely. In this case, the content distributor (USNews) also went out of their way to SEO their site with microdata[1], so I'm going to guess a lot of their inbound traffic also comes from Google searches.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Microdata

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

#535

Post by dang »

drnonsense42 wrote: post #181
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…

Yeah, get that promotion! Developers, developers, developers!

Posting like this will get you banned here, so please don't. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#536

Post by zekrioca »

jsnell wrote: post #489
zekrioca wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although Google was the one which prepared it for production before its releasing, k8s originated from academia (more precisely, University of Massachusetts Amherst). Ps.: check follow up comments. My comment in here is wrong.

Do you have a source for that claim?

[1] https://kubernetes.io/blog/2018/07/20/the-history-of-kuberne...

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

#537

Post by dang »

genesor wrote: post #504
wutwutwutwut wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People on HN are completly crazy and uneducated... Whenever there is something like this you can be sure you will find hundreds of insulting or mean comments on the commit or PR... It gives a really bad image of the community.

This sort of name-calling breaks the site guidelines badly, regardless of how right you are, or how superior you feel to the rest of the community. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#538

Post by dang »

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #380
Tepix wrote: 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.

This sort of attack will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

and this one:

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

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

#539

Post by dang »

uda wrote: post #254

Quoted post unavailable.

It seems to have very plainly been a mistake, and your comment broke the site guidelines. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#540

Post by zero_shift »

fiatjaf wrote: post #13

So you can't do that? I do it all the time when I fork something.

No, you cannot.

I'd advise you to fixup any forks on GitHub, e.g. https://github.com/fiatjaf/jiq/blob/master/LICENSE, which are currently in breach of license.

You'll need to inform anyone who forked your code, too.

This is something you agreed to in the following part of the license:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Post reply on HN