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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#221

Post by wat10000 »

layer8 wrote: post #210
wat10000 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of…

In the present case of Spegel, it wasn't in accordance with the license, because the fork removed the attribution.

I get that, but it doesn’t really seem to be what the author is complaining about.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#222

Post by diggan »

Maxious wrote: post #170
giancarlostoro wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very possible, from the in repo documentation (which credits Spegel yet again) https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/docs/design.md it seems like there was a particular engineer at Microsoft who was working on Azure Container Registry who found it useful to integrate Azure Container Registry. If they contributed it upstream, would we be discussing a blog post "how dare evil megacorp submit a PR that only implement…

> If they contributed it upstream, would we be discussing a blog post "how dare evil megacorp submit a PR that only implements their API! embrace extend extinguish!"? Probably.

Considering how often that happens VS how little times stories like that appear on the frontpage of HN, I'd wager a guess that we wouldn't be discussing it like we're discussing the current license violation.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#223

Post by AdrianB1 »

sneak wrote: post #178

Publishing free software is giving away a gift. People using that gift is the point. Forks aren’t just permitted, they are encouraged. That’s why we release free software. You aren’t in competition with Microsoft and their fork. There is no such thing as marketshare when there is no market.

Keeping his name in the license note is required by the terms and that is an expectation, even if you get the software for free.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#224

Post by austin-cheney »

That is why I only choose extremes with my open source licensing. If I really don't care then I go with a CC0 1.0 license. If I want any participation or credit for the work at all then I go the other extreme: AGPL 3.0. If that, and only that, means people will refuse to look at the project then I know I have chosen wisely.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#225

Post by vinceguidry »

panzi wrote: post #174
nicoburns wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.

So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?

Apple doesn't ship any of these anymore.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#226

Post by FlyingSnake »

gwerbret wrote: post #59

I suspect that what's happening internally (at Microsoft) is that someone's leveraging your work towards their next promotion packet. They went to their manager with "hey I've got this great idea" and followed it up with your code a few weeks later. Of course, this only works if they claim they were "inspired" by Spegel to "write their own code".

That was my initial guess as well. I am glad that the author chose to take a high ground instead of naming and shaming the people behind this egregious act.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#227

Post by pjmlp »

johnisgood wrote: post #72
ghuntley wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also https://isdotnetopen.com and https://ghuntley.com/fracture

@pjmlp, thoughts?

Nothing is new, I have mentioned multiple times that Microsoft management undoes the great work from .NET team.

Also as polyglot developer, while I happen to have my preferences in regards to technology, I am not married with any of them.

Being MVP, Champion, or whatever program each megacorp happens to have, was never something I saw value in.

Never make a specific technology, or company, part of your identity as person.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#228

Post by zamadatix »

panzi wrote: post #174
nicoburns wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.

So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?

Change "use" to "distribute" (what the license cares about) and you're bang on.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#229

Post by HideousKojima »

panzi wrote: post #174
nicoburns wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.

So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?

Linux is GPLv2, not 3

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#230

Post by homebrewer »

chii wrote: post #140
vasco wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interacting with faceless entities with the power to buy multiple countries the same way you'd interact with some interested independent young person wanting to learn. Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat people differently from corporations, and random small and medium corporations differently than huge megacorps without losing any sleep. Special…

> charging more to those that can pay more is a very common approach. and all consumers dislike price discrimination. Airlines is the classic example. It's just that those companies do this because they can. And i hate it. I much prefer a static, single price for a product.

No, it's also because some consumers can't pay the "original" price. Steam in "developing" countries is a classic example — you as a game developer can ask a guy from my country $60 for a game (and some companies do try that), but he will simply go back to torrent trackers because $60 is a week's worth of living expenses.

gaben figured that out and successfully expanded into many markets that were considered basket cases for software licensing.

Post reply on HN