What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by Microsoft gets turned into some nefarious narrative.
Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
391–400 of 626 posts
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#392I 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 taking responsibility for this and for the transparency.
It is good to be reminded that care and integrity can exist, even in large corporations.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is veering to the meta, however, one of the best things came out of my HN experience is how to converse and discuss better. Actually I strive hard to not to be a knee-jerk person. I always take my time while writing something and try to back-up with actual events and/or facts.
The point I was trying to make that for companies like Microsoft, reaching for the pitchfork is not always a knee-jerk reaction IMHO. For all the things they have done, my initial reaction is always Oof, not again..., which is actually sad for a company of this size.
It's actually unfathomable to me for a company like Microsoft to not test these flows adequately and allowing this to happen.
For a change, I want to see a more open computing platform, a less intrusive Windows version, or a longer maintenance window for CentOS, but we all have is a brawl.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is veering to the meta, however, one of the best things came out of my HN experience is how to converse and discuss better. Actually I strive hard to not to be a knee-jerk person. I always take my time while writing something and try to back-up with actual events and/or facts. The point I was trying to make that for companies like Microsoft, reaching for the pitchfork is not always a knee-jerk reaction IMHO. For…
One big clue you have that the reactions here were knee-jerk is that they all turned out to be totally wrong. There's a lot of corncob dot gif happening in the aftermath.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#395What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…
No post body was provided.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but I have written licenses for that purpose. [1] (I'm trying to get them reviewed by a lawyer, but can't afford to; maybe I'll do a GoFundMe.) What I did is say that if you feed copyrighted software to an algorithm that itself outputs software, then the license applies to the output. This covers the output of compilers and such, but it would also cover Copilot in my opinion. We'll see what a lawyer says. Howe…
The “Yzena Copyleft License” states that it's a copyleft license, but it also states that it's not a viral license. According to Wikipedia, a viral license and a copyleft license are the same thing.
Wikipedia is not the best source of information.
There is a difference between "strong" copyleft and "weak" copyleft. An example of "weak" (non-viral) copyleft is the CDDL. In fact, the CDDL's Wikipedia page talks about strong and weak copyleft.
You can read [1] for a breakdown of copyleft by an actual lawyer. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia's Copyleft page is woefully inadequate.
[1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/10/24/How-to-Speak-Copyl...
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#397Oops, a bot just removed bandwidth limits for Windows source code on a bittorrent seedbox.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is veering to the meta, however, one of the best things came out of my HN experience is how to converse and discuss better. Actually I strive hard to not to be a knee-jerk person. I always take my time while writing something and try to back-up with actual events and/or facts. The point I was trying to make that for companies like Microsoft, reaching for the pitchfork is not always a knee-jerk reaction IMHO. For…
One big clue you have that the reactions here were knee-jerk is that they all turned out to be totally wrong. There's a lot of corncob dot gif happening in the aftermath.
I'm glad that my assumption proven to be wrong, by Microsoft itself, nonetheless. However, is being wrong is always equal to being a knee-jerk? Does the reputation of the company in question doesn't play a role here?
Or, shall we be stateless, and evaluate every events without any prior experience? I don't think that holds a lot of water in real world, either.
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#399What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…
Releases of all open source things Apple uses, by OS: https://opensource.apple.com/releases/
These mostly link to repositories under one of their GitHub organizations: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/
Apple's open source projects: https://opensource.apple.com/projects/
Which mostly link to repositories under their main GitHub organization: https://github.com/orgs/apple/repositories
Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]
#400I 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…
I know Jeff personally and he's great. This happens all the time at Microsoft though. Teams try to do OSS themselves, haven't a clue how GitHub or licensing works (e.g. they think the CLA transfers copyright), and after a slap aside the head, I send them to Jeff for guidance and all is well.