Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 626 posts

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#381

Post by tptacek »

throwaway277432 wrote: post #379
verst wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reached out to Jeff Wilcox who runs the Open Source Programs Office now earlier (see Tweet https://twitter.com/berndverst/status/1474789173882089472?s=... ). He since commented on this post with a lot more detail.

He wrote a great response. Not many people I know would stand in front of a online mob and say "It's code that I wrote". And then fix it on Christmas! While I'm glad this got resolved so quickly, I'm slightly ashamed of myself and the HN community for how we handled this. In hindsight the outrage was wildly out of proportion for a simple bug. I'll make a mental note to do better in 2022.

Thanks for saying this.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#382

Post by petilon »

fault1 wrote: post #223
petilon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who puts anything on the web is at the same risk. For example, ask Google how old Queen Elizabeth is [1]. Google tells you the answer in a big font at the top of the result page. Google sourced the answer apparently from usnews.com but you didn't even have to click the usnews link. Google "took" the answer from them and deprived that website of a click. So yeah, you are donating your work to Google when you pu…

isn't that covered under a fair use 'right to quote'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote

If all of the useful information in a web page is mined and given away by a third party in an automated fashion, such that the copyright holder is deprived of revenue, then that's not the intention of 'right to quote'.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#383

Post by Shared404 »

sarahnovotny wrote: post #350
jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

This is my favorite part of the culture change which is happening at Microsoft. We are still working on it. And, it will take time. Jeff's team, my team, the java team whose forked repo this unintentionally highlighted are working with dozens of other teams every week. Satya says we're all in on open source. Hold Jeff and Me and all the leaders of Microsoft to that vision. Keep us accountable. And, know this takes ti…

Unlike the sibling to my comment, I appreciate both this and the GP.

I was all in on MS as a kid/young teen.

Eventually I started looking at the actions of Microsoft, and as stupid as it is, felt betrayed.

I still don't trust MS, and still hate the direction Windows is heading, I will probably never daily drive it again.

However, comments like these give me hope that MS can turn itself around. Maybe some day MS will be the company I thought it was!

Tl;dr: Thanks for making changes!

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#384

Post by itzprime »

victorvscn wrote: post #360
_zzaw wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think this is an example of addressing a mistake that other companies should take note of. I don’t trust Microsoft-sized corporations as a matter of principle, and I don’t typically give them the benefit of the doubt, but when one of their own engineers explains in human-readable terms what specifically happened—on a holiday, no less—I’m impressed enough to believe him. Some PR flack showing up with vague boi…

Quoted post unavailable.

How has Microsoft reformed? Windows 11 is more intrusive than ever, it changes default programms more frequently to their desired programms and it is so annyoing to switch browser. THey still are the same old.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#385

Post by bayindirh »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #367
tptacek wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened here was obviously a mistake. The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. The thread would have been a lot more fun if we could have spent it talking about what prompted your team to build this thingy, and bounce other people's approaches to the same problem off, and ma…

> The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. Another good reminder that Hacker News is not above assuming the worst and gathering pitchfork mobs like any other social media. The issue looked like a mistake from the start to anyone paying attention (committed by a bot, changes were c…

No post body was provided.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#386

Post by hawski »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #333
jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

A lot of commenters are sharpening their pitchforks, but this comment, in my opinion, makes it very likely that it was an honest mistake. Amazing what taking personal responsibility and earnestly apologizing can do to restore trust and credibility!

In a way I'm glad that this is not taken lightly. We all need to be informed and calm, but mega-corporations should be held to higher standards. They should feel breath of an angry mob once in a while. I imagine, that if reactions to things like that would be just "meh, it's probably just a mistake" it would not be resolved as quickly or it could just be ignored. But now that it is all cleared up let's go home and Merry Christmas.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#387

Post by giancarlostoro »

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

Thank you for the full transparency, sadly we may hear for years of people saying how Microsoft blatantly ripped off someone else's copyright, but that's probably okay, those people probably wouldn't use your projects for whatever reason anyway, when in fact it was a bot meant to keep you guys from releasing code prematurely without a reasonable license to begin with (at least that's what it sounds like?).

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#388

Post by GrinningFool »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #201
osolo wrote: post #178

The 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Most processes for that type of thing come about only after someone has made a mistake.

Source: experience in the industry. Including having made a similar mistake myself a couple of years back (and receiving a fair bit of internet hate for it)

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#389

Post by throwaway82931 »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #333
jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

A lot of commenters are sharpening their pitchforks, but this comment, in my opinion, makes it very likely that it was an honest mistake. Amazing what taking personal responsibility and earnestly apologizing can do to restore trust and credibility!

No post body was provided.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#390

Post by tptacek »

bayindirh wrote: post #385
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thread is full of lurid accusations, because those are fun to write and talk about, but it shouldn't take even a minute's thought to see how dumb a heist this would have been. Another good reminder that Hacker News is not above assuming the worst and gathering pitchfork mobs like any other social media. The issue looked like a mistake from the start to anyone paying attention (committed by a bot, changes were c…

Quoted post unavailable.

The obligation you're not living up to is to HN, not to Microsoft. If you want to participate here, the onus is on you not to be knee-jerk; avoiding knee-jerkism is the subtext of like 3/4 of the site guidelines.
Post reply on HN