271–280 of 1001 posts
GPLv3.
Microsoft has been a bully for years: https://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response
They can't change, regardless of how much marketing money they put into "We love opensource".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> chore: change to MIT license What does "chore" mean in this context? Is the license just leftover from some MS open source template? If so there is perhaps some leeway, and the author maybe just didn't realize he needed to use the original MIT license file including the notices and not just a template one grabbed from the internet. Any other explanation for such a "relicensing" would be extremely worrisome.
I'd say, in this case "chore" means "boring, nothing to see here".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Whether this would be considered non-free is up for debate IMO. Why would a license like this be considered non-free when the GPL is free? Is it the scope of it? The OSI would hate it because they represent the organizations this is meant to curtail.
Though most of this is moot if you can just launder code through a LLM and magically remove any licensing for it.
> As a sole maintainer of an open source project, I was enthused when Microsoft reached out to set up a meeting to talk about Spegel. The meeting went well, and I felt there was going to be a path forward ripe with cooperation and hopefully a place where I could onboard new maintainers. Seems it isn't the first time Microsoft leads open source maintainers on, trying to extract information about their projects so they…
"breaking the licenses"? "without attribution"? Did we read the same article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies are never just money. There is a monumental difference between: 1. A small company which is barely profitable but is building something which aligns with your values and you see as a positive to the world. 2. A massive mega corporation whose only purpose is profit, mistreats employees, and you view as highly unethical. You shouldn’t treat those the same way. It’s perfectly ethical to offer your work for fre…
There is no such difference. A company is not a person, and can literally have its entire staff changed in short order. Or be bought. Companies have no morals. Sometimes people in companies do, but again, that person can vanish instantly. You should treat a company as a person which may receive a brain transplant at any time. Most especially, when writing contracts or having any expectation of what that company will…
> As a sole maintainer of an open source project, I was enthused when Microsoft reached out to set up a meeting to talk about Spegel. The meeting went well, and I felt there was going to be a path forward ripe with cooperation and hopefully a place where I could onboard new maintainers. Seems it isn't the first time Microsoft leads open source maintainers on, trying to extract information about their projects so they…
Both myself and my other half have separately been directly on the receiving end of the "brain rape" by major companies that everyone here will have heard of, both of which went nowhere except for the supposedly interested acquirer to become ever more angry that the crown jewels were simply not offered up on a plate.
This situation is surprising in that he did get an acknowledgement at all. These companies are not good actors, and have a casual disregard for the IP of everyone else that should be immediately obvious.
> As a sole maintainer of an open source project, I was enthused when Microsoft reached out to set up a meeting to talk about Spegel. The meeting went well, and I felt there was going to be a path forward ripe with cooperation and hopefully a place where I could onboard new maintainers. Seems it isn't the first time Microsoft leads open source maintainers on, trying to extract information about their projects so they…
Another example here, Google forked a GCS fuse driver and the author found out later and posted on HN about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35790223 Edit: apparently Google did not use the author's codebase, instead using an Apache 2.0 licensed codebase [1] explained here [2]. [1]: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gcp-filestore-csi-driver [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35863944
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say, in this case "chore" means "boring, nothing to see here".
It's interesting, because "chore" to me has strong connotations of "tedious, unpleasant".
> As a sole maintainer of an open source project, I was enthused when Microsoft reached out to set up a meeting to talk about Spegel. The meeting went well, and I felt there was going to be a path forward ripe with cooperation and hopefully a place where I could onboard new maintainers. Seems it isn't the first time Microsoft leads open source maintainers on, trying to extract information about their projects so they…
I’m assuming the complaint is more about Microsoft duplicity in asking for information as opposed to the forking of the code. The latter is fine - the license explicitly allows it.