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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#451

Post by Kubuxu »

palata wrote: post #432
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Microsoft does credit the authors on their README. Maybe it's not exactly the right way to do it, but they do it. Now if it's not the right way to do it, what about opening a PR and asking to change it? Instead of writing a blog post to complain about them? Now maybe those engineers thought they did well, will get issues internally because of the bad publicity for Microsoft, and next time they want to use an open sou…

The question is who does the copyright belong to in this repository. It is both original author and Microsoft (because they took authors code and modified it). So the License file should mention both.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#452

Post by bigstrat2003 »

GrantMoyer wrote: post #206
0xTJ wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always choose permissive licenses for personal project, and I often avoid depending on other projects that aren't permissive. If I want to know that, if I need to, I can grab the code and change something. And I want others to be able to remix what I make as needed. The more limitations added on a license, the less open it is.

> And I want others to be able to remix what I make as needed. The more limitations added on a license, the less open it is. It's unintuitive, but permissive licenses are not the best way to acheive this. GPL's "limitations" are designed to maintain the right and abilty to remix code for the end user . So if say Microsoft forks your library and its fork becomes more popular, they can't make it proprietary after captu…

> So if say Microsoft forks your library and its fork becomes more popular, they can't make it proprietary after capturing the market and effectively stop people from remixing what you made.

Neither can they stop people from such remixing if the project used a permissive license. The GP's project will still be there, still freely available for anyone to use however they see fit. Nobody is stopped from using it in any way.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#453

Post by palata »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #434
palata wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The details are less important. The code that is copied needs to be attributed, either with comments, or a license file that states which files came from the project, or something else, but the specific code does need to be recognizable by a reader as coming from that other source. Comments and copyright headers are the easiest way to do this.

Still, to me it's not even clear if "substantial parts of the code" were copied. What the article shows is really small snippets of pretty generic code. Ok, it keeps the original comment and the overall form. But if it's 15 lines, it may even count as "fair use", couldn't it? Remembering how LLMs use the concept of "fair-use" by stealing everything everywhere...

My point is that Peerd seems like it's loosely based on Spegel. Maybe a fork that was heavily modified. Not sure if they should track all the code that looks like it was not modified enough and attribute it everywhere.

Probably they should keep a copy of the original LICENSE file somewhere, sure. And if one asks politely, maybe they will do it.

Again: they did credit the original project. So it feels a bit aggressive to say that they "stole it without giving any credit".

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#454

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

palata wrote: post #442
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

You don't need a 12 month process with a legal department to not take code without giving credit. This is not untrodden ground.

> they mentioned the original project in the README

They thank them for their "generous insights". That's not the same thing. If I take chapters unmodified from Harry Potter and thank Rowling for her "generous insight", that's still not okay.

> Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch.

Nobody said it was. It does, however, copy functions and other entire blocks of code with comments directly from Spegel without giving attribution. That is wrong. That is plagiarism.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#455

Post by skc »

layer8 wrote: post #330
staunton wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It derives from the idea that programmers are supposed to find "solving interesting problems" pleasant. On the other hand, boring, repetitive tasks are called "chores".

I don’t find it appropriate nor useful to place such a sentiment in a commit message, much less as a standard tag.

It's a nerdy colloquialism. ie, it's not that serious

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#456

Post by buzzy_hacker »

jenadine wrote: post #255
orthoxerox wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL without CLA, to be precise. AGPL with CLA is a trap.

What's wrong with CLA? I've contributed to project with CLA. Have been using them and then wanted a feature and the project accepted my patch. Ther are still many people contributing to project with CLA.

https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/anti-cla-action-wh...

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#457

Post by vvillena »

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.

It's in the LICENSE file. With a MIT license, you assign a copyright to the project, or to a certain set of files. The Spegel license attributes copyright to "the Spegel authors", while Peerd attributes it to "Microsoft Corporation".

If some of the peerd code was lifted from Spegel, it's blatant stealing. Code attribution is the only thing a MIT license asks people to honor, and Microsoft couldn't even do that.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#458

Post by pferde »

skywhopper wrote: post #35
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 don’t mind sharing my software with others, even folks who want to make a profit. Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I’ve only released a few small projects open source. But when I do, I make my projects fully public domain. I’m not interested in feeling any sense of obligation to those who try the software out, so I free them from any obligation to me as well. That said, I fully support larger projects bei…

But they wouldn't be under any obligation to you. They would be under obligation to whoever they distribute their modifications of your code. That's it.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#459

Post by palata »

NobodyNada wrote: post #441
palata wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, but then why not just opening a PR in the repo asking for that? Sounds like a very minor change. Yes, they have to do it and they should. But I feel like insulting them because they gave credit in the README but not exactly in the proper way is a bit aggressive.

Engineers in big companies are quick to criticise how the legal department is a pain in the ass, but when I see the reactions here, I completely understand why it is.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#460

Post by krupan »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #418
krupan wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think you understand the difference between use and distribution, between running code and copying code.

All source code is automatically copyrighted and restricted (at least in the US) and you must follow copyright laws and license agreements for all source code that you copy and distribute. GPL licensed code is not special in this regard. How you use GPL software has zero restrictions.

Post reply on HN