21–30 of 61 posts
Lerna was released with an MIT license as was Rush. So, nothing was stolen and if the story is true, the only infraction here would be that the Lerna copyright line was not included in the Rush license.
Which is one of the very few things they are required to do. Following the clauses in the MIT license is not really rocket surgery.
What part of my comment are you disagreeing with??
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Lerna was released with an MIT license as was Rush. So, nothing was stolen and if the story is true, the only infraction here would be that the Lerna copyright line was not included in the Rush license.
So you have just one single thing to do, and you don't do it - how can you be trusted then?
My comment isn't about trust, it's about what the actual infraction was. Microsoft is made up of 35,000 people. There's no way I trust all of them. Of what company do you actually have trust in every employee?
Based on this description, it sounds like an employee committing plagiarism in order to defraud their boss. Retroactive editing of the commit history is particularly suggestive; it implies someone tried to cover their tracks.
Also, when some random blogger contacts Microsoft and asks Microsoft to do something about something, then Microsoft better stop what they're doing and listen!
Enjoy your Microsoft-hate-train all. yawn
Lerna was released with an MIT license as was Rush. So, nothing was stolen and if the story is true, the only infraction here would be that the Lerna copyright line was not included in the Rush license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is one of the very few things they are required to do. Following the clauses in the MIT license is not really rocket surgery.
That's exactly what I said - that was the only infraction. What part of my comment are you disagreeing with?? Copyright infringement is not theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hanselman is another shill. I was exceptionally intimate with the .NET team at one point. It is literally the case that they have devised a system where code is stolen, or poached, by the younger engineers and then "cleaned up" by "senior" devs. Senior devs then take the credit and bonus and things like that. Microsoft changed how bonuses are given out internally. It's literally a money slider that is arbitrarily set…
Can anyone else (e.g. ex-MS folks) confirm what you wrote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I said - that was the only infraction. What part of my comment are you disagreeing with?? Copyright infringement is not theft.
Simple. Distributing MIT-licensed code without the original license disclosure is theft.
What happened was truly awful, but I don't think it's fair to blame MSFT when probably what happened was a few employees trying to take all credit for code they didn't write. From the thread it seems that he did not reach out to MSFT via any official channels and only informed "people he knew at MSFT".
What happened was truly awful, but I don't think it's fair to blame MSFT when probably what happened was a few employees trying to take all credit for code they didn't write. From the thread it seems that he did not reach out to MSFT via any official channels and only informed "people he knew at MSFT".
Unfortunately, the thing about corporate personhood is that corporations are responsible for the actions of their employees. Unless of course, they can show that the employee was acting against explicit instructions or policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, the thing about corporate personhood is that corporations are responsible for the actions of their employees. Unless of course, they can show that the employee was acting against explicit instructions or policies.
Without a doubt, stealing code like this is against policies at Microsoft.