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

It's far from the first time I see this kind of reaction and, IMO, rather than everyone spending time on piling on the flamewar, how about opening the door for MS to set this straight and do the right thing? Assume good faith even if you personally don't sincerely believe it? Give them an easy way to save face and present a plausible narrative rather than having everyone dig their trenches deeper? If you'd prefer MS not to screw people over, it helps no one to solidify them in doing just that.

Already so many people shouting "YOU ARE THE DEVIL", not one going "hey, looks like this is a mistake, let's sort it out". IMO the latter is more constructive. It's almost as if people want Microsoft to do bad things. Remember it's a huge organization with all kinds of people and ideologies internally. It's too early to tell which way the individual behind this particular change is leaning.

It took me all of 1-2 minutes to make this PR[0], probably less than any of the meme pictures in that commit thread. Let's see how it goes. Last time it went through[1].

[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/grpc_bench/pull/1

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/pull/22262

EDIT: ...And, it's merged. I'm assuming the rest of the affected repos will be fixed as well and an apologetic blog post issued by Monday. Anyone who feels that's too long time can always open corresponding PRs instead of wasting their time by replying to this with how that's not our job. Happy holidays.

Did you click the link for this article? Did you see that MS removed the author’s name in the license header and replaced it with their own?

If you want to throw your copyright out the window: The commonly accepted solution seems to be CC-0[1], which tries very hard to disclaim rights and limit liability in as many jurisdictions as possible, complete with a fallback license grant for failed public domain dedications. Because CC-0 makes some people uncomfortable despite the lengths it goes to reach its goals, some projects work with dual-licensing to cover the other side, such as Monocypher.

Neither of them address patents. If patents are something you want to/need to address, you could perhaps paste the patent clause from BSD-2-Clause-Patent onto 0-clause BSD.

See also the discussion on [2,3].

[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html

[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain-equivalent_licen...

[3] http://landley.net/toybox/license.html

Here.

def add( x, y): return x + y

I don't want to live in some dystopia where we have dozens of lawyers deciding who owns that above code snippet. If Amazon wants to use that snippet, fine, you can use it, etc.

All Co Pilot does is optimize taking code snippets from different sources.