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

601–610 of 626 posts

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

#601

Post by tptacek »

chris_wot wrote: post #591
tptacek wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does seem like you are doing this. I have tried to answer you. Instead of asking questions, just state how you believe I’m wrong. I’m ok with this, if I’ve not understood something or made a mistake, I’m happy to concede. Asking questions until you get an answer you want worked for Socrates, but for everyone else it is better to just state what is wrong about my and other’s argument and the reason why.

As was pointed out upthread: your theory about what Microsoft stood to gain from this license change was simply incorrect. I'm not sure what we're still discussing at this point.

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

#602

Post by tptacek »

chris_wot wrote: post #592
Dylan16807 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting the wrong info in a file doesn't change the copyright ownership.

And thus the flaw in my argument. I concede the point. Thank you.

The copyright ownership isn't the real flaw in your argument!

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

#603

Post by tentacleuno »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #482
brobinson wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: when linking to a line of code, simply press Y on your keyboard to have Github switch from the _branchname/path/to/file.xyz_ URL to the _sha1/path/to/file.xyz_ URL. The former can result in your URL pointing to unrelated code if lines are added or removed in future commits on the referenced branch. https://github.com/microsoft/opensource-management-portal/bl...

Amusingly, this works on gitlab too. I was surprised that the shortcut was "so good that competitors had to implement it."

It's like Super+E: You never know you need it until you try it, and it doesn't work on your DE :-(

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

#604

Post by chris_wot »

tptacek wrote: post #601
chris_wot wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem like you are doing this. I have tried to answer you. Instead of asking questions, just state how you believe I’m wrong. I’m ok with this, if I’ve not understood something or made a mistake, I’m happy to concede. Asking questions until you get an answer you want worked for Socrates, but for everyone else it is better to just state what is wrong about my and other’s argument and the reason why.

As was pointed out upthread: your theory about what Microsoft stood to gain from this license change was simply incorrect. I'm not sure what we're still discussing at this point.

You said I hadn’t answered your question. What I said was incorrect. Ergo, I answered your question. You told me I hadn’t answered your question, now you say I answered your question but I was wrong. Try to make up your mind.

If you are confused what is being argued about, perhaps stop.

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

#605

Post by chris_wot »

tptacek wrote: post #602
chris_wot wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thus the flaw in my argument. I concede the point. Thank you.

The copyright ownership isn't the real flaw in your argument!

What is the flaw? Perhaps you should actually say what it is.

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

#606

Post by shp0ngle »

toxik wrote: post #160
colejohnson66 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because “Microsoft Bad”. When a company gets big enough, there will always be a portion of the population you can never please, and Microsoft reached that size a long time ago.

Microsoft has a long and dark history. I think you’re brushing aside the real contention. People who were around before MS decided to open-source-wash their brand KNOW what Microsoft’s DNA is. They had a literal playbook to crush Linux.

Crushing linux is one thing.

PUBLICLY changing Copyright notice in MIT software and keeping the history online is another thing.

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

#607

Post by bakul »

dang wrote: post #596
hatware wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully, and vehemently disagree. Informing someone that they may be drinking too much of their company's Kool-Aid, without knowing what is in it, is a moral obligation. Despicable that you present this as a bannable offense.

Sorry, but garden-variety internet comments and cheap personal attacks don't rise to the noble level of moral obligation. The comment plainly broke the site rules. That's not allowed here. If people have noble duties to fulfill, they can do that without breaking the rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I too don't think there is any "moral obligation" involved but I did feel it was perfectly fine to point out what I did. I quoted their "I work for MS" to provide the context for my comment, nothing more.

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

#608

Post by colejohnson66 »

bakul wrote: post #607
dang wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but garden-variety internet comments and cheap personal attacks don't rise to the noble level of moral obligation. The comment plainly broke the site rules. That's not allowed here. If people have noble duties to fulfill, they can do that without breaking the rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I too don't think there is any "moral obligation" involved but I did feel it was perfectly fine to point out what I did. I quoted their "I work for MS" to provide the context for my comment, nothing more.

You are insinuating astroturfing with no evidence other than "I work at Microsoft" and your personal, albeit somewhat justified, belief of "MS bad". It's not a constructive comment.

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

#609

Post by tptacek »

chris_wot wrote: post #605
tptacek wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The copyright ownership isn't the real flaw in your argument!

What is the flaw? Perhaps you should actually say what it is.

Again, as was pointed out to you upthread, the license terms on that project already allow them to do the thing you claim Microsoft was hoping to do by altering the license. It's a MIT license! It's practically the least you can do beyond writing "these files are placed in the public domain".

I'm sorry to beat up on you. It's not your fault, but someone upthread wrote that Microsoft's developers should have known better than to have this bug, because developers should all understand licensing. That set me off, because in hate-reading this thread (something I should obviously not be doing), it's clear that a lot of Microsoft detractors here simply don't know what the MIT (or Apache) licenses do.

But then, the reason I started hate-reading this thread in the first place was that I clicked on the story link, saw an authorship edit to an MIT-licensed file, and thought to myself "how can so many people here give a shit about this?"

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

#610

Post by hatware »

dang wrote: post #596
hatware wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully, and vehemently disagree. Informing someone that they may be drinking too much of their company's Kool-Aid, without knowing what is in it, is a moral obligation. Despicable that you present this as a bannable offense.

Sorry, but garden-variety internet comments and cheap personal attacks don't rise to the noble level of moral obligation. The comment plainly broke the site rules. That's not allowed here. If people have noble duties to fulfill, they can do that without breaking the rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> garden-variety internet comments and cheap personal attacks

That is how you took the comment.

I took the comment to be a refreshing dose of reality.

Perspective matters a lot.

Post reply on HN