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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#341

Post by nu11ptr »

koiueo wrote: post #95
nicoburns wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". The incentive is generally that people enjoy having their projects used, be that by commercial companies or otherwise.

(A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. That's the point! GPL family of licenses would've made a difference in this aspect for libraries (because afair if you link to GPL code, you must be GPL). But for an app? You can use it, fork it, modify it... Just make sure you make your changes available under the same license. Seems very fair to me.

I won't use GPL libraries in my code. I'm quite confident I'm not the only one.

If there was no other choice, I may consider something LGPL or with the linking exception, but not until I had exhausted a search for something more permissive. To this day, I've never used GPL in any of my code, open source or closed. I've been writing code for 35 years daily.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#342

Post by krupan »

nu11ptr wrote: post #325
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.

Hi! Do you work for Microsoft? There is nothing "non-permissive" about the GPL. You can use the code however you want. "Viral" is a perjorative description that Microsoft pioneered the use of to describe the GPL. The GPL is not a virus that latches onto any code it gets near, without anyone's permission. You should not use that term.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#343

Post by palata »

paxys wrote: post #338
jenadine wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors To replace it by their own. Despite the license says > The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.

Still, it's illegal for Microsoft to remove the copyright as per the licence.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#345

Post by WD-42 »

evantbyrne wrote: post #199
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.

You are supposed to keep the original license for a fork. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license.

It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. They do reference the project in the repo.

The real question is why did the author choose MIT if they didn’t want allow mega corps to benefit from their work without contributing back. That’s a feature of the license, not a bug.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#346

Post by throwaway2037 »

Regarding the removal of copyright notice, did anyone open an issue on the Microsoft GitHub repo to have it restored? It should be relatively simple to fix. Yes, I know, this won't dull the knife that Microsoft stuck into the back of the original author.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#347

Post by pama »

nu11ptr wrote: post #325
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.

One could argue that GPL is very permissive. If you need to use it in a proprietary way in your own company for internal purposes, no problem; if you release software that others use, you have to release the code as well. I dont want to be using black boxes in this day and age.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#348

Post by unsungNovelty »

talkingtab wrote: post #84

My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community. The problem this addresses is not that Microsoft forked this project. The problem is that when a corporation like Microsoft does this, they harm our community[0]. Open source thrives because a bunch of individuals and groups collaborate. Microsoft, is built around the concept of profit for stock owners a…

> My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community.

You are going exactly against the OSS philosophy. OSS shouldn't restrict the use of software just because you don't like it. It was created to fight exactly this. This is also why source available BS (like BSL) is against OSS. OSS is literally about being about hacking and changing software to suit your needs. It was never about the money part. You should create your software as proprietary if you are SO bothered with OSS. And you can always donate and contribute back to the OSS software you use. I don't think butchering OSS philosophy is the way.

The problem here is license illiteracy. Even I who for a while used to think I understood a lot about OSS license just had a doubt now:

When you fork, do you retain the copyright part? Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors

That is what we need to fix.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#349

Post by WD-42 »

latexr wrote: post #137
chii wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should not be any difference between small or large entitise in how you deal with them as an opensource maintainer. Just because someone has more money (or less), should not automatically mean you treat them with more leniency or ethics. You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes.

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…

How do you refuse to engage if you use the MIT license?

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#350

Post by unsungNovelty »

croemer wrote: post #339
unsungNovelty wrote: post #334

Am a bit confused. Is Microsoft breaking MIT license here? I can see both projects are in MIT and I don't see the below Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors Which should be retained when you are forking it right? Or am I wrong?

Yes, indeed, that's missing. Though it should be: "Copyright (c) 2023 Xenit AB" as that was the license that was in place when the copy/paste took place: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/ed21d4da925b9a179c...

Thanks for confirming.
Post reply on HN