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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#421

Post by Nemo_bis »

pjmlp wrote: post #356
Nemo_bis wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft did not bother to respect even the MIT license, so clearly the license is not the problem.

Not arguing for Microsoft, rather the fact that people put out MIT licenced stuff out there, or similar, arguing how bad GPL happens to be, and then get all up in arms when companies do exactly what the licence allows for. Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.

I don't disagree with the general point but in this case we're looking at what (seems to be) a blatant copyright violation. It would not be any more or less of a violation if the infringed license had been a more or less permissive one, because the license has not been followed.

Sure, the MIT is very permissive so it's very easy for Microsoft to correct their repository so that it's in compliance for the future, but they cannot correct the past. (Unless the original authors allow for it.) The MIT license, being so short, does not have a provision about curing infringements.

So Microsoft seems to be ok with the risk of being sued for infringement etc. That's not something you can correct with your personal decisions as author.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#422

Post by baq »

coldpie wrote: post #236
talkingtab wrote: post #84

My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community. The problem this addresses is not that Microsoft forked this project. The problem is that when a corporation like Microsoft does this, they harm our community[0]. Open source thrives because a bunch of individuals and groups collaborate. Microsoft, is built around the concept of profit for stock owners a…

Eh, just use the (L/A)GPL. It's already well understood and established; humans and well-meaning businesses can use the software ethically; corps won't use it even though they could because their intellectual property lawyers don't understand how intellectual property works.

They most likely understand, they don’t trust their engineering coworkers to not ignore it. Blanket ban is an easy sell when upside is limited and downside is basically unbounded.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#424

Post by palata »

ygjb wrote: post #417
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…

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…

Do they have to copy the licence in every single file, or do they have to copy the licence somewhere in their fork?

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#425

Post by olejorgenb »

paxys wrote: post #338
jenadine wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors To replace it by their own. Despite the license says > The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.

If they had been factual I the credit I'd agree. When it's actually a fork, why not just say so. "This project is a fork (or based off) Spegel. Thanks to the authors etc" Maybe with a rationale why they forked it. You know, just common decency...

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#426

Post by palata »

ptx wrote: post #396
palata wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here keep saying that they removed copyright headers. I can't find a single copyright header in the Spegel source files. Can someone help me find which headers Microsoft actually removed? What I see is that Microsoft added headers to their Peerd files. Now they read "Copyright Microsoft", which is correct because Microsoft owns some copyright over those modified files. If those files had had a "Copyright Spege…

It's in the license file: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commits/main/LICENSE

Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of this LICENSE file somewhere? Can't we just open a PR to add it to the repo? Did the author do that and did Microsoft decline the PR?

Feels like Microsoft was not necessarily trying to steal work (they link the original project in their README).

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#427

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

palata wrote: post #419
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I refuse to believe that Microsoft doesn't understand how attribution, copyright, or open source licenses work, though. I believe this is a mistake, but it's a very egregious one that showcases a lack of respect for the communities that Microsoft is exploiting. This mistake should not be possible from an entity like Microsoft.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#428

Post by HexDecOctBin »

talkingtab wrote: post #84

My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community. The problem this addresses is not that Microsoft forked this project. The problem is that when a corporation like Microsoft does this, they harm our community[0]. Open source thrives because a bunch of individuals and groups collaborate. Microsoft, is built around the concept of profit for stock owners a…

It already exists:

https://polyformproject.org/licenses/small-business/1.0.0/

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/01/26/Big-Time-2.0.0

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#429

Post by reaperducer »

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.

It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair.

Why "to be fair?" This is a trillion-dollar company with enough lawyers on staff to populate a small city.

Why are we cutting Microsoft slack? If anything, it should be held to the highest of standards.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#430

Post by baq »

diggan wrote: post #7
benwilber0 wrote: post #5

Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence and certainly not one that doesn't provide copyleft. This is all very well established at this point and yet somehow the GPL seems to have gone out of vogue.

> Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been…

If you worked at a megacorp you’d know they care a whole lot about not allowing GPL code anywhere near their propertiary repos; this is usually enforced by IT security (NOT engineering) with dedicated scanners, confirmed matches are at least highest priority bugs.
Post reply on HN