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

581–590 of 626 posts

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

#581

Post by barnabee »

throwaway82931 wrote: post #389
gautamcgoel wrote: post #333

Earlier 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.

I’d rather we all ceased the collective regressive delusion that is copyright.

There are other ways to make sure artists and inventors can eat than by using the threat of violence to make the unscarce scarce.

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

#582

Post by implements »

implements wrote: post #164
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #156

How did it used to go? Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish But now not even bothering with the extend. I’d guess this is a mistake of some kind.

Dismiss, Embrace, Extend and Extinguish - if I remember the early histories of Netscape and Java accurately.

Crikey - surprised by the downvotes. I mentioned “Dismiss” because I remembered it as being a significant part of the process - attempting to “Take the wind out of the sails” of something innovative, to slow market adoption and to buy time to plan the Embrace, and decide how to best Extend to eventually win the competition.

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

#583

Post by fivea »

nomel wrote: post #503
fivea wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. The more links, the easier it is to argue that it's a mistake. Automation is hard, you know? Is it wrong though? I mean, if Microsoft's reiterated pattern of license switches is automated, wouldn't this also mean that the error would be easily detected based on public feedback alone? And given this was not the first or second or third separate and independent occurrence of this pattern, if this was a honest…

> wouldn't this also mean that the error would be easily detected based on public feedback alone Please see the entire public feedback you’re a part of right now.

Thanks for the call out. Here's a helpful link to the announcement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29685628

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

#584

Post by Zababa »

dragonwriter wrote: post #522
Zababa wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a part that I don't understand. If some software is mirrored on github by someone that isn't the copyright owner, it seems like github shouldn't be able to use it. Yet they said nothing about that specifically. In that case, is the only option to put code somewhere else than github under a license that forbids reuploading to github, and issue DMCAs when/if people reupload your code? It also sounds like when c…

> If some software is mirrored on github by someone that isn't the copyright owner, it seems like github shouldn't be able to use it. If they don't need permission from the copyright owner, either via license of GitHub T&C, because it's fair use, which is their overt legal theory, then why would it matter legally whether the code was posted to GitHub at all , much less by whom ? Ingesting only code form GitHub is a p…

Thanks for the clarification. So according to their theory, I could train a model on any code, even private Microsoft code, and that would be okay? That sounds surprising to me.

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

#585

Post by CatDogSledDoor »

sarahnovotny wrote: post #350
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 ti…

No post body was provided.

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

#586

Post by windexh8er »

tptacek wrote: post #575
windexh8er wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how "dumb a heist this would have been". This is Microsoft and their track record with respect to illicit and/or illegitimate behavior needs to be continually scrutinized. They put themselves in this position. They have made plenty of intentionally dishonest "mistakes" over the years. Track records matter and Microsoft doesn't have a clean one. Scrutiny of companies of their size should be the norm.…

"Scrutiny" doesn't mean making up nonsense issues, which is what this is. There's no amount of weasel words you're going to apply that's going to make changing an MIT license in a public git repository part of a terrifying conspiracy --- or a conspiracy of any sort.

Removing and applying an incorrect license to open source software by a multi-national software giant is a "nonsense issue"?

Hardly "weasel words" when you look at the action that took place. It wouldn't be OK for you to do it and it isn't OK for a bot that Microsoft deployed incorrectly to do either.

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

#587

Post by indrora »

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!

A phrase I've come to appreciate:

> Prescribe not to malice that which may well be a buggy edge case.

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

#588

Post by dang »

bmitc wrote: post #547
dang wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29685852 .

Why was that done? I specifically responded to a comment.

I listed 5 reasons why we do that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27132402. In this case I think it was a combination of (2) it was a step into more generic discussion and (5) the thread was top-heavy and we were trying to prune it.

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

#589

Post by zenexer »

gortok wrote: post #114
zenexer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. You don’t own the code just because you forked it. The original copyright holders retain ownership, and you must abide by their license. You can’t swap out the license unless they explicitly allow you to do so.

That’s not true. You can change the license if the license allows you to. It’s copyright you can’t change unless the author assigns the copyright to you.

That’s exactly what I said. :)

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

#590

Post by rStar »

throwaway984393 wrote: post #466
phkahler wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that Microsoft is composed of many pieces, but that doesnt prevent me from treating it like a single entity. And that entity has IMHO done horrible things to it's own products and customers, so I'd rather they keep theirs hands off FLOSS as much as possible.

But if you treat it like a single entity, that means you also treat all the people working there like that entity. The janitor working at Microsoft doesn't deserve your ire, nor the secretaries, etc. But they work there, and carry around their logos on their backpacks and what not. Those people have feelings, and those feelings feel bad when the entity they work for is lashed out at. It does make one feel bad when on…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN