Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed] • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#481

Post by peakaboo » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #391

What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…

Yes they are still working on world domination and needs to act kind and responsible, unlike Google and Apple that is ahead of them.

If Microsoft had the most popular search engine and the most popular mobile operating system, they would be gathering all our data and putting ai robots to answer our questions.

These big tech companies do not have the best interest of us in mind. They are a force for centralization of power into the hands of billionaires.

It doesn't have to be this way but it requires users to smell the coffee and want another Internet and another big tech industry.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#482

Post by sillysaurusx » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

brobinson wrote: post #440

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

FYI: when linking to a line of code, simply press Y on your keyboard to have Github switch from the _branchname/path/to/file.xyz_ URL to the _sha1/path/to/file.xyz_ URL. The former can result in your URL pointing to unrelated code if lines are added or removed in future commits on the referenced branch. https://github.com/microsoft/opensource-management-portal/bl...

Amusingly, this works on gitlab too. I was surprised that the shortcut was "so good that competitors had to implement it."

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#483

Post by zekrioca » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #452

bmitc wrote: post #391

What's surprising to me about all the negative reactions Microsoft receives, especially on here, is that from my point of view, they are currently the most open out of all the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc). I cannot remember a time Apple has admitted to anything or made any effort to have anything that could be considered open, but they do no wrong in most people's eyes, where even a simple mistake by…

Google contributed the enormous k8s to the community, which has thankfully made Microsoft's proprietary Service Fabric mostly go away. Apple have caught huge flak recently e.g. for the phone-local image scanning software.

Although Google was the one which prepared it for production before its releasing, k8s originated from academia (more precisely, University of Massachusetts Amherst).

Ps.: check follow up comments. My comment in here is wrong.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#484

Post by danesparza » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

Damn dude. You posted this comment on CHRISTMAS no less. Either your phone exploded or you are a VERY PASSIONATE hacker news fan. Either way ... props to you for trying your best to straighten this out immediately.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#485

Post by GrinningFool » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #469

GrinningFool wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most processes for that type of thing come about only after someone has made a mistake. Source: experience in the industry. Including having made a similar mistake myself a couple of years back (and receiving a fair bit of internet hate for it)

Processes are built ahead of time if people take a risk seriously.

This is also true and is not mutually exclusive. People and organizations are fallible - much process is developed from learning.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#486

Post by junon » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

Thanks, this is the correct sort of response to this problem. It wasn't clear by the title this was an automated change, hence the pitchforks.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#487

Post by throwaway82931 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #478

throwaway82931 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Lets also get rid of web search engines while we are at it, or transparent caching CDNs /s

Web search engines claim fair use for snippets, and MS claims fair use for Copilot. However, a web search engine result page is only an aggregate of the excerpted pages, and it refers back to them; unlike software authored using Copilot, it does not draw those snippets together into a coherent purposeful whole, strip all reference to the original author. and claim complete originality.

That MS went ahead with training Copilot on open source code authored by people who are clearly not OK with it is why they are so short on goodwill.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#488

Post by laumars » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

gautamcgoel wrote: post #333

jeffwilcox wrote: post #321

I lead the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office team. I'm sorry this happened. We have merged a pull request that restored the correct LICENSE file and copyright, and are in touch with the upstream author Leśny Rumcajs who emailed us this morning. We'll look to revert the entire commit that our bot made, too, since it updated the README with a boilerplate getting started guide. The bug was caused by a bot that was d…

A lot of commenters are sharpening their pitchforks, but this comment, in my opinion, makes it very likely that it was an honest mistake. Amazing what taking personal responsibility and earnestly apologizing can do to restore trust and credibility!

If you read the comments, most people believed it was an honest mistake. What we didn’t agree with was that it was an excusable mistake. Microsoft have since acknowledged it’s not excusable and thus will rectify that error. So as far as I see it, all parties, both for and against MS, should be satisfied with the outcome.

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#489

Post by jsnell » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

zekrioca wrote: post #483

robertlagrant wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google contributed the enormous k8s to the community, which has thankfully made Microsoft's proprietary Service Fabric mostly go away. Apple have caught huge flak recently e.g. for the phone-local image scanning software.

Although Google was the one which prepared it for production before its releasing, k8s originated from academia (more precisely, University of Massachusetts Amherst). Ps.: check follow up comments. My comment in here is wrong.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Re: Microsoft forked MIT licensed repo and changed the copyright [fixed]

#490

Post by J0BC6xEIDNi4 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #426

bayindirh wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to see what Microsoft plausibly stood to gain by modifying an MIT license. Actually, not being able to find a plausible gain in five minutes doesn't automatically clear Microsoft (or any company) in my mind. From top of my head, I can list three technologies which I find suspicious in the long run: LSP, WSL, SecureBoot. All in all, I just don't trust Microsoft , and think about the worst of their actions…

If you don't have anything well-considered to say about an event on HN, the best thing to do is not to say anything at all. Believe it or not, your personal distrust of a giant company isn't all that interesting to the rest of HN.

I think what he has to say is well-considered, and interesting. Meanwhile, the fact that you consider yourself qualified to speak for "the rest of HN" is... deeply fascinating.