Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

501–510 of 626 posts

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

#501

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…

Good job owning the mistake and planning to prevent it in the future.

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

#502
post #154

I don't think that just because some "bot" did this Microsoft is to be excused. Someone decided that using a piece of software to automatically alter license files. This is a genuinely stupid idea. And they already fucked up in the same way with the CUPS project. Will they learn without someone taking them to court over this? I don't think so.

1) bot changes license

2) bot2 takes data for copilot

3) we are "sorry" for bot 1

4) bot2 took data

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

#503
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The more links, the easier it is to argue that it's a mistake. Automation is hard, you know? Especially if no one noticed these and called them out on it until now.

> Wrong. The more links, the easier it is to argue that it's a mistake. Automation is hard, you know? Is it wrong though? I mean, if Microsoft's reiterated pattern of license switches is automated, wouldn't this also mean that the error would be easily detected based on public feedback alone? And given this was not the first or second or third separate and independent occurrence of this pattern, if this was a honest…

> wouldn't this also mean that the error would be easily detected based on public feedback alone

Please see the entire public feedback you’re a part of right now.

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

#504
post #154

I don't think that just because some "bot" did this Microsoft is to be excused. Someone decided that using a piece of software to automatically alter license files. This is a genuinely stupid idea. And they already fucked up in the same way with the CUPS project. Will they learn without someone taking them to court over this? I don't think so.

> Will they learn without someone taking them to court over this? Only on hackernews I see this level of crazyness. You need to reduce your caffein intake drastically.

People on HN are completly crazy and uneducated... Whenever there is something like this you can be sure you will find hundreds of insulting or mean comments on the commit or PR... It gives a really bad image of the community.

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

#505

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…

Very nice to see someone take ownership of a problem. Thanks Jeff :)

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

#507
post #180
post #178

The attitude in these threads always boggles my mind. When YOU, your teammates or someone else you know makes a mistake, then it’s just a mistake. But when someone at Microsoft makes a mistake it’s because Microsoft is evil and by extension so is the person who offended. “It’s a big company”, you say. They should have a process! And I’m sad to say, they do/will have a process exactly because of this attitude. Then, e…

The difference is, most engineers I know respect and understand licenses. If you work at Microsoft - a software company - you should too.

Respecting a license is completely orthogonal to the unintended behavior of an automation used on something it wasn’t really meant for (fork rather than a new repo)

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

#508

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.

This feels like the sort of thing where straightening it out immediately, even on christmas day, was well worthwhile simply because it would let him enjoy his christmas dinner without worrying about an inevitable building dramastorm.

That is not, however, a complaint - being smart enough and giving a damn enough to realise that straightening it out immediately was a really good idea is impressive and laudable in and of itself.

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

#509

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…

Leśny Rumcajs? :)

For those that don't know Polish it means Forest Rumcajs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumcajs), probably a joke of the author that wants to be anonymous.

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

#510
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying. This also highlights the lack of sufficient testing, and subpar processes, eg automation should be tested against critical paths, and changing a license should require human approval.

Agree. The lack of tests has been the biggest regret of mine for this project. It started as a hackathon project a long time ago, and as it grew up, it never got the testing investment it deserved. I imagine the code coverage is about 0.001% and there's no end-to-end tests in place.

My local tooling doesn't fail as visibly as this but it certain fails just as catastrophically leaving me feeling excessively silly.

So, yeah, hugops, mate.

Post reply on HN