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

Getting forked by Microsoft

philiplaine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#431

Post by NobodyNada »

WD-42 wrote: post #382
NobodyNada wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "pretty minor violation", that's the only condition of the MIT license. Yes, they mentioned Spegel, but only to thank the authors for "generously sharing their insights" -- that's not even close to the required statement that part of the project is owned and copyrighted by the authors of Spegel.

Ok, so MS will see this thread and re-add the missing header to a few files. You really think the author is going to then feel 100% better about it? They are just another data point in the long list of authors who chose a permissive license and are then shocked when a billion dollar company takes advantage of it.

I can't speak for the author, but I when I release code as open-source I think carefully about the license that I use (usually either MIT, GPL, or CC0). If I choose MIT, then it's because I'm fine with companies "taking advantage" of my code. I'd probably mainly feel glad that I created something useful to someone.

What I'm not OK with is a company doing that without attribution. If XYZ company's product is built on code I wrote, I want to be credited -- both so that I can show it to potential employers, and so that users of XYZ company's product are aware that some of the code in it is something they can use for free and modify for their own purposes. If the attribution wasn't important to me, I would have chosen CC0 instead of MIT.

So yeah, if I was the author, I'd probably feel a lot better about if MS re-added the correct attribution. I'd probably still feel miffed that they tried to pull one over on me in the first place -- but I wouldn't be offended by the fact that they're using my software.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#432

Post by palata »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #420
palata wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely interested: everybody here says that they removed the copyright headers. But when I browse through the Spegel sources, they do not contain a copyright header... To me it's the Spegel author's fault: there should be a copyright header in every single file, such that Microsoft would have to keep it.

MIT license doesn't require copyright headers. You need to credit the authors even if the files don't have headers.

Microsoft does credit the authors on their README. Maybe it's not exactly the right way to do it, but they do it.

Now if it's not the right way to do it, what about opening a PR and asking to change it? Instead of writing a blog post to complain about them?

Now maybe those engineers thought they did well, will get issues internally because of the bad publicity for Microsoft, and next time they want to use an open source project their legal department will be even more of a pain in the ass because if they aren't, then random people on the Internet use that to do bad publicity for the company.

Why not assuming that they are in good faith here? There are enough reasons to hate Microsoft other than this one.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#433

Post by pjmlp »

indrora wrote: post #293
gavinhoward wrote: post #281

Use copyleft. I know it isn't mainstream, but companies try to avoid those licenses as much as possible. Tinfoil hat: sometimes I wonder if companies astroturfed support for permissive licenses. Getting the entire Rust ecosystem to avoid copyleft was a huge win, for example. And now that copyleft Gnu tools are being replaced with permissive uutils in Ubuntu, it seems they won, whether or not they were the ones to pus…

Copyleft and the shift to static executables are incompatible. The vast majority of the rust (and Go) ecosystems is non-copyleft because you cannot satisfy the GPL in any meaningful way and satisfy your corporate legal department’s IP lawyers.

Hence why advocates from going back into the days of static linking should consider the how and whys we moved from them, and better pick their toolchains.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#434

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

palata wrote: post #424
ygjb wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is fairly asinine. When you fork an open source project under the MIT license you have an obligation to include the original license in all copies or substantial copies of the code. The author of the fork may also sublicense, which allows them to add new terms to the license, but not remove the original license. Forking and/or copying files from the Spegel code base into the Peerd code base is permitted…

Do they have to copy the licence in every single file, or do they have to copy the licence somewhere in their fork?

The details are less important. The code that is copied needs to be attributed, either with comments, or a license file that states which files came from the project, or something else, but the specific code does need to be recognizable by a reader as coming from that other source. Comments and copyright headers are the easiest way to do this.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#435

Post by bigstrat2003 »

koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

> What's good about being "permissive"?

For me personally, because I believe in freedom and permissive licenses grant more freedom than others do. I don't really care for licenses which attach unnecessary strings to what recipients can and cannot do with the software.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#436

Post by 0xTJ »

simondotau wrote: post #397
0xTJ wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it can't be used commercially, then that's not an open-source license. If you choose to license your work that way, that's your choice, but you're not making something open-source.

Who said it can’t be used commercially? Just because they can’t profit from it doesn’t stop them using it.

From the post to which I replied: "If you want to use it commercially, pay for it.". I am replying to them talking about a license that prevent commercial use.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#437

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

palata wrote: post #432
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT license doesn't require copyright headers. You need to credit the authors even if the files don't have headers.

Microsoft does credit the authors on their README. Maybe it's not exactly the right way to do it, but they do it. Now if it's not the right way to do it, what about opening a PR and asking to change it? Instead of writing a blog post to complain about them? Now maybe those engineers thought they did well, will get issues internally because of the bad publicity for Microsoft, and next time they want to use an open sou…

They do not credit the authors. They thank them for their "insight". That's very much not credit for copied code.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#439

Post by throwaway87464 »

kstrauser wrote: post #260
pyfon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it crummy? Open source benefits big tech now. Especially for cloud based stuff. Only open source it if it fucks big tech. E.g. bittorrent or an alternative browser. Or an app on your local machine as a SaaS alternative.

Less permissive copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL go a long way toward preventing that. It’s important to choose them over weaker licenses if you don't want companies using your work without giving back. If you do that, you don't have to do other unusual things to protect your users’ rights.

The GPL and AGPL don't prevent corporations from plagiarizing your code via AI.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#440

Post by paxys »

olejorgenb wrote: post #425
paxys wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.

If they had been factual I the credit I'd agree. When it's actually a fork, why not just say so. "This project is a fork (or based off) Spegel. Thanks to the authors etc" Maybe with a rationale why they forked it. You know, just common decency...

Because it's not a fork. They copied the API and like 100 lines of unit test code.
Post reply on HN