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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#321

Post by wavemode »

Not a direct solution to your problem, but people should definitely consider Apache over MIT when reaching for a permissive license. In addition to being more robust about things like, notifying users of modifications that have been made to the original source code, it also explicitly requires that forkers maintain the NOTICE file in its entirety, and distribute that file to users receiving copies of the software (whether source or binary copies).

Even if megacorp does nothing else for you, that NOTICE file can at least contain information about who you are as the original author, links to your website, etc.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#322

Post by koiueo »

rikroots wrote: post #141
koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

> I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". My JS canvas library is licensed using MIT. From my personal perspective, I wouldn't have any problem with some $MegaCorp coming along and forking it, and even claiming it as their own creation. But ... why? Because one of the main drivers for my development of the librar…

Remember EEE.

Very likely, you'll end up with a $MegaCorp-backed competitor driven by goals very different from yours.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#323

Post by bornfreddy »

ryao wrote: post #289
talkingtab wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good point. Trying to think this through. I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that pe…

> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. That violates the first clause of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd It probably violates 5 and 6 too. > But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork wi…

Maybe the open source definition needs to change, or it is time to find a better way of protecting community software? This one is clearly (in some ways) not working.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#324

Post by alganet »

NanoYohaneTSU wrote: post #302

Open source developer now learns why open source is stupid first hand. Thank you everyone for making free software!

When you're a teenager sometimes you are into a girl that you like and she notices and acts all snobby.

Then sometimes you get into a date with her, but discovers she isn't what you expected. It was the snobbiness that made you more eager to know her.

Then, disappointed, you break up with her and she starts telling everyone you have bad breath, your friends are idiots, and that you are dumb and ugly (but she secretly still likes you).

When you're adult you start to realize that none of it is really that important. She is probably nicer than you remember. And you were just a kid.

All this HN discussion reminds me of those teenage years somehow. Like a twisted psychology distortion of it. It is kind of funny actually.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#325

Post by nu11ptr »

koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

One should choose a license that fits them. The problem with GPL licenses is they are viral and non-permissive. As a developer, as soon as I see the GPL I just click away to another repo no matter how good the lib is. I don't want people doing that to my projects, so I use Apache/MIT or whatever the permissive license that is most prominent for the language I'm using.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#326

Post by pjmlp »

pritambaral wrote: post #251
pjmlp wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT License.

Violated by the removal of author's copyright notice.

Adding the copyright notice to be in compliance, does not change the fact that the author has chosen a licence that allows anyone, including Microsoft, to do whatever they feel like, without giving back.

So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#327

Post by aantix »

Let's create a license where companies with X number of employees that create a fork automatically owe the original owner Y amount.

It's ridiculous that companies with literal trillion dollar market caps coast on the back open source.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#328

Post by krupan »

znpy wrote: post #33

> Spegel was published with an MIT license. Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. If that's what the license says, why is the author complaining? Microsoft is complying with the license. That's what you get for not picking the one of the license from the GPL family. > However, I am not the first and unfortunately not the…

Exactly. Microsoft has been doing exactly this kind of crap since their very founding. The counter to it has existed for decades: GPL. And now AGPL for web stuff. How do you think the Linux kernel and GNU runtime have survived this long without the MS Embrace and Extend? GPL.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#329

Post by donalhunt »

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.

The number one rule about creating clean source (and IP) is not to look at competing implementations / patents. Was drilled in to me by legal over the years to avoid such issues. Really easy to unconsciously incorporate ideas from other projects.

This is not that though. Seems to be exactly what the maintainer is asserting and that's not OK. :/

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#330

Post by layer8 »

staunton wrote: post #279
layer8 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting, because "chore" to me has strong connotations of "tedious, unpleasant".

Right. It derives from the idea that programmers are supposed to find "solving interesting problems" pleasant. On the other hand, boring, repetitive tasks are called "chores".

I don’t find it appropriate nor useful to place such a sentiment in a commit message, much less as a standard tag.
Post reply on HN