Getting forked by Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#411

Post by palata » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:20 PM UTC

NobodyNada wrote: post #402

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 t…

Right. So they should just add a copy of that line somewhere in the repository, saying "some parts of this project come from this licence"?

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#412

Post by fefe23 » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:20 PM UTC

So, let me get this straight. You published your software under a free license that stipulates they can't remove the license and are otherwise free to do as they please.

They took you by your word and did exactly that.

What did you think a license is for? For artistic expression? It's a contract. If you want to get paid, put that in your license.

I recommend AGPL 3. Then nobody will rip you off. And if they do, you can drag them to court over it.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#413

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:21 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #119

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.

Interacting with faceless entities with the power to buy multiple countries the same way you'd interact with some interested independent young person wanting to learn. Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat people differently from corporations, and random small and medium corporations differently than huge megacorps without losing any sleep. Special…

> Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers.

But the US Supreme Court would be one of them.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#414

Post by MyOutfitIsVague » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:22 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #375

udev4096 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation Except that they did not do that. They forked it (as the MIT licence permits), added an attribution to their README, and added their own header to the files with their own copyright. It's not their fault if the original author did not add a header in the first place... Or where do you see that they actually removed a copyright header from the auth…

MIT license requires attribution, not "a copyright header". It's not concerned when headers, or with sources being pristine, but with people being credited. If I release my software MIT-licenced, but don't have copyright headers, you are not free to copy files without crediting me.

And no, their note in the readme is not an attribution. It's thanking them for "sharing their insights", which in no way is code attribution.

Microsoft violated copyright here, bar none. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#415

Post by palata » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:22 PM UTC

evantbyrne wrote: post #403

palata wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. So they should just copy this licence somewhere in a subfolder, saying "parts of this project derive from Spegel, with licence: "?

They can still do it now, and probably they should (someone can even open a PR?).

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#416

Post by WD-42 » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:22 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #410

WD-42 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you read the article? The missing attribution is a tiny part of it. That’s not really what the author is complaining about.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#417

Post by ygjb » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:23 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #375

udev4096 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation Except that they did not do that. They forked it (as the MIT licence permits), added an attribution to their README, and added their own header to the files with their own copyright. It's not their fault if the original author did not add a header in the first place... Or where do you see that they actually removed a copyright header from the auth…

Your argument is fairly asinine. When you fork an open source project under the MIT license you have an obligation to include the original license in all copies or substantial copies of the code. The author of the fork may also sublicense, which allows them to add new terms to the license, but not remove the original license.

Forking and/or copying files from the Spegel code base into the Peerd code base is permitted, but since the Spegel code base had a single license file covering the entire repo, then the onus is on Microsofts engineers to update the code they copied and include the original license terms, for example, by including something like:

// Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.

// Licensed under the MIT License.

If your argument is that they aren't required to do this because the original code didn't have a license header in the file, then it would follow that you are arguing that the MIT license doesn't apply to the code that was copied, in which case Microsoft is using unlicensed code stolen from an open source project.

While I haven't worked at MS specifically, I would assume that like every other tech company I have worked at, they have a team or working group that specializes in adherence to open source licenses specifically to avoid both the legal implications and the bad PR implications of misusing open source software.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#418

Post by jandrewrogers » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:23 PM UTC

krupan wrote: post #372

jandrewrogers wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about permissive licenses is that it maximizes the utility of the code. I don’t care if someone makes a mountain of money by forking my permissively licensed code, that is in some sense the objective and I lose nothing by it. This strain of rent-seeking behavior by some that open source their code but then believe they are entitled to compensation or forced contributions if the wrong people use it per…

I'm sorry, but you are way off base. Use is not restricted by GPL licenses. People have expressed desires to restrict use of GPL code (what if terrorists or pedophiles or Republicans use this code??) and Stallman and it's defenders have not allowed any restrictions of use.

GPL code does not exist in a vacuum. To be maximally useful, GPL code must coexist with source code subject to different legal, regulatory, and licensing regimes. GPL use is only “not restricted” if you completely ignore that compliance with GPL can unavoidably result in civil and criminal liability. Sure, those potential users are not required to avoid civil and criminal liability but that is not a serious argument.

Permissive licenses generally allow source code to coexist within almost any legal scenario into which source code may be placed. This is why I only use permissive licenses both for my own open source and for the open source I use.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#419

Post by palata » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:23 PM UTC

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #414

palata wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation Except that they did not do that. They forked it (as the MIT licence permits), added an attribution to their README, and added their own header to the files with their own copyright. It's not their fault if the original author did not add a header in the first place... Or where do you see that they actually removed a copyright header from the auth…

MIT license requires attribution, not "a copyright header". It's not concerned when headers, or with sources being pristine, but with people being credited. If I release my software MIT-licenced, but don't have copyright headers, you are not free to copy files without crediting me. And no, their note in the readme is not an attribution. It's thanking them for "sharing their insights", which in no way is code attribut…

Right, they should copy the LICENCE file somewhere in their repo. Why not opening a PR, before writing a blog against Microsoft?

They actually thanked the project, it doesn't feel like they were trying to steal it. Maybe they will just accept such a PR and that's all.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#420

Post by MyOutfitIsVague » Mon, Apr 21, 2025, 3:24 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #405

diggan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MIT license doesn't require copyright headers. You need to credit the authors even if the files don't have headers.