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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#191

Post by hardwaresofton »

jezek2 wrote: post #86
phillebaba wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. It seems to be one of the licenses out there that scares the big three cloud providers.

The problem is that it scares away also others. Personally I avoid such projects for any purpose, they simply don't exist for me. I also don't understand the cloud hosting argument, when we had a great whole era of Apache/PHP/MySQL stack based on exactly this idea of commercial hosting.

> The problem is that it scares away also others. Personally I avoid such projects for any purpose, they simply don't exist for me.

I think this isn’t a problem — not everyone has to contribute to any project! People sometimes struggle with the choice between GPL and MIT for similar reasons of popularity.

People who want the widest possible usage/corporate adoption can pick licenses that reflect that and embrace the tradeoff

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#192

Post by adultSwim »

"I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive."

He already gave them permission. I think he is overemphasizing the meeting they had and under-emphasizing already giving away his work.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#193

Post by dboreham »

johnisgood wrote: post #80
ryao wrote: post #54

I initially was going to say: Failing to abide by the MIT license is copyright infringement. My advice is to contact these guys: https://softwarefreedom.org/ They likely can file a cease and desist on your behalf. However, I took a closer look at the files in question. The MIT license requires that they retain and provide copyright notices, but you never put copyright notices in your files. The only place where you a…

> but you never put copyright notices in your files. I thought having a LICENSE file in the project's root directory was sufficient. Is it not the case?

I would say: absolutely no (ianal). But I've had stand up arguments with colleagues in the recent past that I was unable to win. They wouldn't even ask the legal team for an opinion. But it's nice to see some evidence here that I was correct.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#194

Post by dboreham »

ryao wrote: post #180
veltas wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sufficient but a good idea to put copyright in all files. Technically if there's no license found then it should be considered automatically copyrighted, with no permissions to copy. So leaving copyright license out actually makes it less open source.

The license does not necessarily need to be in the files. It could be a project level license in LICENSE, which is what the author here did.

It's not the license that's important, but the copyright notice.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#195

Post by ryao »

akdev1l wrote: post #146
ryao wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blobs violate clause 2 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd We are no longer talking about open source software if you distribute blobs in place of source code.

They could distribute source code under AGPLv3 while also offering paid/propietary pre-compiled binaries

That is not what pyfon was suggesting. He was suggesting publishing binaries instead of source code.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#196

Post by flysand7 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #157
chii wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i ahead of time decided to give my next dollar to the next guy begging, why not?

That's a really silly precommitment. If you were sensible, your actual commitment should be "help the next person who requires help, provided that help can be provided in the form of one dollar".

If a guy comes begging for money out of rolls royce, I guess they either are pretty bad at begging or have a pretty bad sense of humor. I guess I wouldn't give money to them, it doesn't seem like it'll help them regardless.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#197

Post by hardwaresofton »

candiddevmike wrote: post #94
hardwaresofton wrote: post #16

The future continues to be AGPL https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

We need an updated/modernized AGPL that more explicitly delineates what is dependent software. SSPL is probably too far, but it has the right idea.

What would be the goal of this? I ask because I think the nice thing about the current system is that the goals are well represented/easy to sum up and defendable.

What would be the goal of a license between AGPL and SSPL on the spectrum? Seems like such a license would at the very least be non-free? (which is perfectly ok)

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#198

Post by staunton »

liveafterlove wrote: post #14
diggan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been…

Is this really true? Whats the point of even licensing our repo then?

A major point is communicating your intentions to people who care about them and who will respect how you wish your project to be treated.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#199

Post by evantbyrne »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #118
vasco wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a megacorp wants your help to explain ANYTHING to them, you better be paid handsomely per hour. Wtf are people doing charity for trillion dollar empires.

It's also very possible they had been working on it already and wanted to compare notes, I certainly would if I were working on something internal and found a similar project, but I agree, ask them for a consultation fee. I don't see why they wouldn't pay it. Both projects also share in license, so I have less of an issue with it personally. They're both MIT licensed.

You are supposed to keep the original license for a fork.

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

Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#200

Post by diggan »

liveafterlove wrote: post #14
diggan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been…

Is this really true? Whats the point of even licensing our repo then?

Well, there are other companies than Microsoft out there, most of which tend to respect FOSS licenses when they fork projects/interact with the ecosystem, at least in my experience.
Post reply on HN