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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#441

Post by NobodyNada »

palata wrote: post #411
NobodyNada wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Yes, that is the condition of the MIT license.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#442

Post by palata »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #427
palata wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe the engineers did not go through a 12 months process with their legal department and did it wrong.

And with the bad publicity coming back to Microsoft, maybe those engineers will now understand that they should just avoid re-using open source projects when possible. And the next HN post will be about "BigTech reinvents the wheel in order to have control".

We're all nitpicking here: they mentioned the original project in the README. Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch.

Sure, they should do it right. But really, a polite, small PR fixing that would probably be a good first step.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#443

Post by DrammBA »

matkoniecz wrote: post #387
ryao wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why you think that LLM-generated legal advise is worth posting on forum for humans?

> Why you think that LLM-generated legal advise is worth posting on forum for humans?

Can you quote which part of the LLM chat above constitutes legal advice? I read the whole chat and didn't see any.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#444

Post by insane_dreamer »

wat10000 wrote: post #128
koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of…

Because the “payment” that you get for its permissive use is the attribution (which can be personal gratification or it can professionally boost your profile/opportunities). MSFT robbed them of that.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#445

Post by saulpw »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #348
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…

> My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community. You are going exactly against the OSS philosophy. OSS shouldn't restrict the use of software just because you don't like it. It was created to fight exactly this. This is also why source available BS (like BSL) is against OSS. OSS is literally about being about hacking and changing software to suit you…

The OSS philosophy was conceived to help end users, not for-profit corporations. Then for-profit corporations co-opted the "Open Source"(tm) label to ensure they could benefit from all this free labor. You and many others are falling for it, and doing their work for them by scolding OSS developers for "going against the OSS philosophy".

So screw this corporate "OSS philosophy", and stop telling people what they "should" do. Those licenses exist and people can use them and this is what happens. We can and should also make different licenses which protect our interests as developers and we don't need corporate shills invoking some philosophical argument to discourage us.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#446

Post by baq »

diggan wrote: post #297
sublimefire wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS has internal tools that scan dependencies etc and flag them against legal team if anything is fishy. License choice matters quite a bit, they will not risk litigation.

Guess they should start using those tools when they setup their "looks-like-acquihire-but-really-is-a-brain-dump" meetings so they could flag the FOSS projects they want to rewrite internally.

People who run the meetings are not people who run the scanners. See also: Microsoft’s org chart https://imgur.com/gallery/org-charts-uBcF28f

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#447

Post by Salgat »

wat10000 wrote: post #128
koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of…

Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements, this is my same approach with using the MIT license. I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. That's why in this case, I'd reach out to Microsoft to fix that issue, and nothing more.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#448

Post by cenobyte »

Not to be mean, but if you don't like the consequences of using an MIT license then don't use it.

Using it then complaining about its effects because you don't like the company is silly.

Use a different license if this is important to you.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#449

Post by atomicnumber3 »

koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

It's bizarre to me how, despite people criticizing the GPL and GNU as too ideological, the people you refer to - the permissive people - somehow seem even MORE ideological. The GPL to me seems pragmatic - sure technically a minimal license like WTFPL (ignore all its legal issues for now) is some kind of minimalist idea of pure objective freedom. But the GPL has some key "restrictions" that aren't really restrictions and produce an ecosystem that WORKS. Meanwhile the permissive ecosystem is just waiting to be scooped up by bigcos at their whim.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#450

Post by throwaway87464 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #352
koiueo wrote: post #19

> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…

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 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.

What if your code is used to actively make the world worse? Is that part of your goal? There's no shortage of corporations making mountains of money doing exactly that, after all.

Post reply on HN