Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
301–310 of 626 posts
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#302No post body was provided.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bot that is supposed to configure the right license when employees start a new repo in the Microsoft GitHub org. It seems the automation is also triggered when Repos are forked into the Microsoft GitHub org which isn't correct behavior. This isn't a deliberate action. If it were plenty of employees (myself included) would be outraged. I assume it's a bug in the bot - an edge case that was not considered. It…
Thank you. So these are in fact all mistakes. I looked at some of the other forked repos (95 out of 4.5K repos) and all the human commits from MS I saw seem to care about getting the licenses right. So it really is just a broken bot. I hope the bot can be fixed soon and I'm going to put my figurative pitchfork down now.
How can someone be so bad at their job that they realize that a bot that writes to the license file needs to avoid overwriting an existing file? A certain degree of malfeasance cannot possibly be explained as incompetence.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
The MIT license puts essentially no restrictions on them that they would need to relicense out from under. They can't un-MIT it. So I'm still not clear on how you propose for them to make money by doing this. Do you have an answer to my question?
If they can change the copyright ownership from an individual to themselves, then they could (however unlikely) change the license on subsequent revisions to no longer provide the software free of charge, and could prevent anyone from using the software and associated documentation files in an unrestricted form.
I think the OP is playing 20 questions for their own entertainment. I think what they're not telling you is that there's nothing to prevent someone from making a closed-source product incorporating something which is MIT licensed (but they're still supposed to give credit where due). That's also not the whole story. Squirrel!
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#305The attitude in these threads always boggles my mind. When YOU, your teammates or someone else you know makes a mistake, then it’s just a mistake. But when someone at Microsoft makes a mistake it’s because Microsoft is evil and by extension so is the person who offended. “It’s a big company”, you say. They should have a process! And I’m sad to say, they do/will have a process exactly because of this attitude. Then, e…
No post body was provided.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#306[deleted]
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#307The attitude in these threads always boggles my mind. When YOU, your teammates or someone else you know makes a mistake, then it’s just a mistake. But when someone at Microsoft makes a mistake it’s because Microsoft is evil and by extension so is the person who offended. “It’s a big company”, you say. They should have a process! And I’m sad to say, they do/will have a process exactly because of this attitude. Then, e…
It's a bug, but it's also an example of what I think of as differential accountability : * Bugs in the bot inevitably assign ownership to the writer rather than from the writer. * Bugs in the billing system invariably overcharge customers * Bugs in the image recognition system invariably select white people. Well-meaning people still follow their incentives. Corners have to get cut somewhere. I totally agree this isn…
I believe "moral hazard" is the term of art for what you describe.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is their process. Very hard to argue these are all mistakes: ippsample (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/ippsample/commit/938bff17c72868... huggingface-transformers (Apache -> MIT): https://github.com/microsoft/huggingface-transformers/commit... health-cards-tests (MIT changed) https://github.com/microsoft/health-cards-tests/commit/5649b... CUPS (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit…
This is a bot that is supposed to configure the right license when employees start a new repo in the Microsoft GitHub org. It seems the automation is also triggered when Repos are forked into the Microsoft GitHub org which isn't correct behavior. This isn't a deliberate action. If it were plenty of employees (myself included) would be outraged. I assume it's a bug in the bot - an edge case that was not considered. It…
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#309A PR reverting this is already approved and merged:
https://github.com/microsoft/grpc_bench/pull/1
Thanks, 3np
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is their process. Very hard to argue these are all mistakes: ippsample (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/ippsample/commit/938bff17c72868... huggingface-transformers (Apache -> MIT): https://github.com/microsoft/huggingface-transformers/commit... health-cards-tests (MIT changed) https://github.com/microsoft/health-cards-tests/commit/5649b... CUPS (Apache -> MIT) https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit…
MS dev here. Thanks for calling this out. I contacted the GH@MS admins to look into this and to consider adding some safeguards to the tooling so this doesn't happen in the future.
How is it remotely possible to not understand you cannot automatically overwrite a license file with your own. If you yourself were creating such automation wouldn't that be one of the first and most obvious things you would think of?