521–530 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool? To me, licenses like MIT or BSD pretty much imply "do whatever you want with this" I know it's not exactly that but if you really care to keep some control over what others do with the code, you need a more restrictive license (and even then people are still going to copy it, especially in the LLM era).
You can't just cherrypick the things you like about a license. All of the conditions of the license apply.
You're thinking about what people can do with the code, like copying, editing, and distributing. This is not it. We're talking about giving credit to the original author, as per the license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 "shou…
Citation needed here, if you're going to make such a bold claim.
The open source movement began as a counter to proprietary closed-source software, and nothing more. It has never been about "fairness" (however you define that) or about preventing anyone from profiting from OSS.
Now that said, fairness matters and I agree that some of what transpires today in the open source world doesn't feel fair.
But that's what new or difference licenses can accomplish, depending on the wants of the authors.
And that's different from the philosophy behind Open Source Software. We should be clear about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "notice" is the literal license file. It is illegal to strip someone else's license from their work. It doesn't matter that they replaced MIT with MIT, because they stripped the author and attribution from it. https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/LICENSE If you read that file you'd think that Microsoft was the copyright holder, but they very clearly aren't.
> but they very clearly aren't. Peerd seems very different from Spegel, so Microsoft does hold quite a bit of copyright over Peerd. Now I genuinely wonder if the main LICENSE should say "copyright Spegel and Microsoft", or if somewhere in the repo Microsoft should just have a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file?
a) Keep any code that you've pulled in from another project in its own directory structure with a license file indicating where it came from and its licensing terms.
b) If you intend to modify the code or integrate it more tightly with your own, copy the notice into each source file that was taken and perhaps put a pre-amble along the lines of "Portions of this file were copied from XXX under the MIT license as follows:". Ideally you would make a commit with the file in its initial state as copied, and then if you ever need to determine what came from where and how it was licensed, it shouldn't be too difficult.
Forked up the wazoo. That said, Microsoft provides extremely generous Startup Assistance (to the tune of > 150K of Azure credits). Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with MS but I did their program, also did the Gcloud and AWS programs back in the day. No negative comparisons, but off the top of my head the Azure program is awesome. I really enjoyed working with Azure, and it does what it says on the tin. You can apply h…
This might as well be a LLM generated ad roll performance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you refuse to engage if you use the MIT license?
don't respond to their emails. If you want to be extreme don't distribute it to them in the first place. Licenses do not come into effect until after distribution. So you could have a pay-to-download model that comes with a %100 discount if you're a lone developer or an organization with under X amount of revenue. You wouldn't be able to stop someone redistributing it after the fact, but you're not engaging.
In distant times (before Microsoft's Satya era) I was the maintainer of a popular OSS product that scratched an important itch for specialist people who were doing work in the early cloud days. It solved my own problems, and I didn't want to make a business out of it, so I was content to release it as OSS. A Microsoft director who ran a portfolio of product teams reached out to ask about a "collaboration". I said I'd…
Do not work for free. Large companies have a shit ton of money. All you need to do is provide an economical argument in the form of your rate (which should take into account their expenses for having an employee / team work on it instead, hint: 2 x total compensation). Getting paid is just a matter of the guy who reached out to you to talk to his skip manager to get a verbal 'ok', and then the accounting department takes care of it. They're not going to pass on you just because you asked to be paid for your time - a business is used to paying for services. If they do pass on you without even negotiating your rate, then they were definitely not serious and nothing good would have come out of it for you.
Source: dev working at FAANG with 3rd party companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the project is good, the license is hardly ever an obstacle for adoption. At least I can't recall any such cases. Do you have any examples?
If it's GPL-like its usage would be mostly confined to open source projects.
Is it possible that there could be enough damages for Microsoft's violation of the license that a talented law firm would take up a lawsuit on a contingency basis?
> A negative impact from the creation of Peerd is that it has created confusion among new users. I am frequently asked about the differences between Spegel and Peerd.
I can't imagine any quantifiable damages here. No business or revenue was impacted. Just chatter in an open source project.