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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#401

Post by filmgirlcw »

andybak wrote: post #245
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.

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. It really does. It stops it being used by people who need or want to use other licences. I believe it stops it being used on iOS and (probably) Android apps. The GPL world and the permissive licence worlds are walled off from each other in significant ways for lots of reasons. Source: I maintain an app where I didn't choose and can't change the licence. And…

> I believe it stops it being used on iOS and (probably) Android apps. The GPL world and the permissive licence worlds are walled off from each other in significant ways for lots of reasons.

I fully agree that (A)GPLv3 code effectively stops code from being used by many large companies (every place I’ve worked in the last decade has a near blanket policy on refusing to use code licensed that way except in very specific and exigent circumstances), but it isn’t necessarily true that app developers can’t use (or can’t choose to license) (A)GPL code in their iOS apps, provided they abide by the terms of the license.

Most developers won’t — or can’t — but the advent of dynamic linking of libraries in iOS, as well as the EU-mandated third-party app stores (which aren’t available outside the EU, but still), make the situation a lot more grey from the black and white stands the FSF attempted to take in the early 2010s. And to my knowledge there have been no legal challenges about the use of GPL code in iOS apps, so the issue is essentially unsettled.

That said, in most of the cases where I have seen iOS apps use GPL code, the full app source was available (and that may or may not fulfill the redistribution requirements but I’m not a lawyer and I’m not going to cosplay as one).

On Android, where full Google Play alternatives like F-Droid are available, plenty of GPLv3 apps exist, even if they aren’t available on Google Play.

But yes, when it comes to incorporating GPL code into a non-GPL app, that is much more difficult in the realm of mobile than it is for other types of applications.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#402

Post by NobodyNada »

palata wrote: post #371

I tend to disagree with the criticism of Microsoft here. The author of Spegel released it as MIT, which means that anyone can fork it as long as they keep the attribution. So if every file of the original project has a header containing the copyright, Microsoft has to keep it. Looking at Spegel, I haven't found a single source file containing an MIT header and copyright. Microsoft added their header with their copyri…

The MIT license doesn't say anything about headers. The attribution requirement is:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The license is saying you have to retain the license itself; it doesn't say anything about any other attribution notices that exists in the source files or anywhere else. It doesn't specify where you have to put the license; it could be in a comment in the code, or it could be in a file next to the code, and that doesn't change anything about the terms of the license.

If the original author put the license in comments, you can keep it in comments, but you could also move it to a standalone file. If the original author put it in a standalone file, you can keep it there or you can move it to a comment, but you can't remove it. If you distribute a compiled binary, you need to be sure you're including the license alongside the binary as well.

If Microsoft distributes a "substantial portion" of the software, and they do not include a copy of the original license (including the copyright statement at the top attributing the original author), they're in violation.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#403

Post by evantbyrne »

palata wrote: post #388
evantbyrne wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forks don't get to pretend that licenses don't exist just because they don't like the placement in the source.

You don't understand my point (probably my mistake). If the file starts with: // // Copyright evantbyrne Then a fork should read: // // Copyright evantbyrne // Copyright Microsoft But if you did not add "// Copyright evantbyrne", the MIT license doesn't say that Microsoft should add it. I don't even know if it's legal for Microsoft to do it. You have to add your own copyright to the files where you own a copyright.

I understood and this is incorrect.

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

It needs to appear somewhere regardless of where exactly the license was placed in the source repository.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#404

Post by [deleted] »

paxys wrote: post #386
layer8 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No legal basis. They still might have an ethical basis regarding Microsoft's behavior, because law != ethics.

If the author has ethical concerns with companies using their work there's a simple way to make that explicit and unambigious – the license. No one can read their mind otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#405

Post by palata »

diggan wrote: post #275
babarock wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"breaking the licenses"? "without attribution"? Did we read the same article?

If you'd care to be a bit more specific, I might be actually be able to explain something to you.

I am genuinely interested: everybody here says that they removed the copyright headers. But when I browse through the Spegel sources, they do not contain a copyright header...

To me it's the Spegel author's fault: there should be a copyright header in every single file, such that Microsoft would have to keep it.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#406

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

panzi wrote: post #174
nicoburns wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.

So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?

Notably, macOS ships mainly BSD-derived userland utils and for the rare GNU software, it's GPLv2 stuff (hence zsh as the default shell, while shipping bash 3.whatever for compatibility).

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#407

Post by nativeit »

nordsieck wrote: post #307
Ajedi32 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL definitely does.

> GPL definitely does. Clearly it doesn't because companies get caught doing it with GPL software all the time. ... and the only recourse is to sue them into compliance.

Were folks under the impression there were other options for license violations? Your comment implies that a lawsuit being the only recourse to enforce a license renders that license moot.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#408

Post by Nevermark »

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.

uh, no!

Microsoft got tremendous value for free by forking. Which makes the obligation to deal ethically and honestly very serious.

You don’t get to take something from anyone without meeting the terms they have set for you to take them. That is theft.

(For clarity, I am saying theft of a right. As it does negatively impact the original creator, in terms of competition and lost attribution to the code they wrote, and Microsoft is not paying the “fee” that taking that right depends on.)

And no third person can can ethically speak for the source of the value and state that it’s no big deal for another party to break some part of a contract/license.

How do you know how much this aspect of the license impacted the original creators decision to share their work, their choice of license, or how they feel and and practically impacted about it now!

In this case, we know they clearly feel the violation was harmful to them at some level. They were snubbed, their work left unacknowledged, while Microsoft leached off them, even though doing the right thing would cost Microsoft essentially nothing.

Please don’t socially absolve the powerful from bad behavior toward smaller parties. That’s bad faith, after the fact, and you are not even benefiting from your own disrespect for the license. Always support the (credibly) injured party.

As for offenses against you, you have every right to be generous and overlook those.

(I once took a year sabbatical to work collaboratively on a project, with the presumed (based on what was a clear discussion to me) attributions being a key factor in me deciding it was worth the time and effort, when other factors made that a difficult decision. Only to have my attribution expectations unfulfilled, and no attempt was made by other parties to work things out. The situation was fraught enough that I couldn’t but help feel bitter about it for some time. I am long over it, but I would certainly take the year back if I could.)

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#409

Post by taftster »

gus_massa wrote: post #285
jasonlotito wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of this thread (where the commenter is suggesting the author release a binary with a different license), your comment is meaningless. The author of the GPL code can release binary-only blobs released under something other than the GPL. Suggesting that the copyright holder cannot relicense their code how they want is absurd. Saying the "GPL does not allow binary blobs" implies that the author is not all…

Can billg make a repo with win.com and win.bat, and use the GPL licence because the win.bat is the source code and win.com is only a binary blob?

Assuming that win.com is able to be stand alone and doesn't require win.bat, then yes, Bill can license both of these components separately, one under the GPL and another proprietary.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) describes this copyleft aspect of the GPL in terms of "derivative works" associated with GPL-licensed software. When two components are related to each other in a derivative way, then the GPL says that the derivative must likewise be licensed accordingly.

So in this example, does win.bat simply execute commands to get win.com started? Is win.bat a glorified shell script wrapper? If so, then win.com would NOT be derived from win.bat. The cart follows the horse. But instead, if win.bat exposed some symbols or other binary API features that win.com was coupled to and depended on, then you could rightly argue that the win.com would be a derivative of win.bat.

More practical of an example, if a database is licensed under the GPL, clients that connect to the database using the socket interface do not constitute a derived work. Or components in a micro-service architecture do not necessarily need be licensed all under the GPL when a single component is.

Pluggable architectures are possible with the GPL. And of course, your interpretation of what exactly that means is subjective and requires case law to help understand.

[edit]

And to reinforce what the parent of yours is saying, the author in the original example can do whatever they want with the software, since they own the copyright for both the GPL and proprietary components.

The GPL is simply a license for non-copyright holders. It allows others to be able to use a piece of proprietary software without having to establish any additional authority with the owner. e.g. it's the means to convey how others can use the software and does not constrain the owners/authors of the software. Other licensing options may be available, if the copyright holder allows.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#410

Post by RIMR »

WD-42 wrote: post #382
NobodyNada wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "pretty minor violation", that's the only condition of the MIT license. Yes, they mentioned Spegel, but only to thank the authors for "generously sharing their insights" -- that's not even close to the required statement that part of the project is owned and copyrighted by the authors of Spegel.

Ok, so MS will see this thread and re-add the missing header to a few files. You really think the author is going to then feel 100% better about it? They are just another data point in the long list of authors who chose a permissive license and are then shocked when a billion dollar company takes advantage of it.

I mean, the author understands the MIT license, and is upset that the terms of that license aren't being honored. If I were them, I would absolutely feel better getting credit where credit is due.

If they wanted a less permissive license, they could have used one.

Post reply on HN