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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#361

Post by cosmic_cheese »

koiueo wrote: post #286
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While working for companies, many devs have had the frustrating experience of finding a library that perfectly solves their problem, only to discover that it’s GPL3 or similar and thus strictly off limits due to company policy. Especially if repeated a few times that’s enough to inspire use of permissive licenses, to help avoid that frustration for their future selves (should they change employers) as well as other f…

To this I can't relate at all. If you can't use a library because it's GPLv3, then the company would need to invest some time and money into reimplementing the features they want. Guess who gets more paid work?

Depends on the constraints. You might not get to build that proper reimplementation and instead get stuck with quickly duct taping together a rough approximation that never gets the requisite time and resources to make it good, whereafter it becomes a persistent thorn in your side until you change jobs.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#362

Post by greatgib »

udev4096 wrote: post #233
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.

Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation. Regardless, it's not your issue to be OK with it, if the author himself is uncomfortable with it

It all depends if the code was copied for a big part or just snippets.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#363

Post by a2tech »

Do. Not. Trust. Microsoft. Why is this a lesson that has to be learned over and over again by people? It's been extensively, exhaustively, documented over the years.

The leopard doesn't change its spots. The scorpion stings the frog. Microsoft screws over people. Lessons learned in childhood that still hold true today.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#364

Post by scarface_74 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #313
b112 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is an exceptionally ignorant viewpoint. A business that is privately owned, is run by its founders and which represents the lion's share of its officers income and net worth can be dealt with like any other small business. Some guy who makes bespoke firmware for industrial microcontrollers or very niche audio encoding software isn't Microsoft. You won't be able to do business with him in a useful way if you trea…

If the business is run by its founders and has taken VC funding, the founder’s “values” no longer matters.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#365

Post by krupan »

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.

All the replies to this spreading anti-GPL FUD are doing Microsoft's work for them. The idea that the GPL is "viral" and will latch onto any code it gets near is an Orwellian turn of phrase invented by Microsoft from what, 30 years ago? And it has worked because people are scared of the GPL! It's gonna get you! Don't even get close to it!

Nevermind that Red Hat built a billion dollar business on top of GPL licensed code. Never mind the millions of embedded systems being sold with GPL code in them. Nevermind Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc., etc. all eating Microsoft's lunch a thousand times over using GPL code. Businesses better stay away! It's dangerous!

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#366

Post by mathattack »

jxf wrote: post #161

In distant times (before Microsoft's Satya era) I was the maintainer of a popular OSS product that scratched an important itch for specialist people who were doing work in the early cloud days. It solved my own problems, and I didn't want to make a business out of it, so I was content to release it as OSS. A Microsoft director who ran a portfolio of product teams reached out to ask about a "collaboration". I said I'd…

And as you illustrated, for a one-off project, rate doesn't really matter. It just needs to get approved by someone senior enough, who will ask "Do we have anyone in-house that knows this?" and "How much will it cost to do all this ourselves?"

If the answer to the first question is "No" then you'll be very cheap compared to the second answer no matter how much you cost.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#367

Post by 0xTJ »

consp wrote: post #252
0xTJ wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always choose permissive licenses for personal project, and I often avoid depending on other projects that aren't permissive. If I want to know that, if I need to, I can grab the code and change something. And I want others to be able to remix what I make as needed. The more limitations added on a license, the less open it is.

I would like a relatively permissive software license which forbids any profiteering (CC-NC but then strictly software). I'm fine with people using my code, not fine with companies profiteering off my work. If you want to use it commercially, pay for it.

If it can't be used commercially, then that's not an open-source license. If you choose to license your work that way, that's your choice, but you're not making something open-source.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#368

Post by krupan »

p_ing wrote: post #131
koiueo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Apple famously migrated away from bash (stuck on 3.2 in macOS 15) to zsh to avoid the GPLv3 'problem'.

There was zero chance of them having problems shipping bash and I'm glad you put problem in quotes.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#370

Post by evantbyrne »

WD-42 wrote: post #345
evantbyrne wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Attribution is an important aspect of open source culture. It is the only thing that most authors get out of the deal.
Post reply on HN