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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#531

Post by zamadatix »

diggan wrote: post #7
benwilber0 wrote: post #5

Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence and certainly not one that doesn't provide copyleft. This is all very well established at this point and yet somehow the GPL seems to have gone out of vogue.

> Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been…

It matters because the only thing which can be claimed to have been ignored here is missing the line "Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors" in the main license file. Now that it's brought up https://github.com/Azure/peerd/issues/109 that'll probably be fixed.

What remains after full compliance with the MIT license choince will be the bulk of the complaints in the article.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#532

Post by asddubs »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #449
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…

well, it's worth noting that since microsoft is also releasing the source code, the same thing could have happened with GPL. Though I suspect the author would be even less happy if they had done all the same stuff (minus removing the copyright notice, even) and then not released the source, so that's not me arguing against the GPL

I also think in practice microsoft would have been less likely to actually take the code, and probably would just have reimplemented the ideas in it if it was GPL

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#533

Post by diggan »

zamadatix wrote: post #531
diggan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't use one of the most permissive licenses in existence Does it matter what license you use if they actively ignore the terms in the license you did chose? MIT requires attribution, but they didn't. Why would any other terms be different? You surely could have put "You must license your project the same as the one you forked from" and they still would have ignored it, not sure what the difference would have been…

It matters because the only thing which can be claimed to have been ignored here is missing the line "Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors" in the main license file. Now that it's brought up https://github.com/Azure/peerd/issues/109 that'll probably be fixed. What remains after full compliance with the MIT license choince will be the bulk of the complaints in the article.

> It matters because the only

So if the author instead used GPL, this wouldn't have been a problem? Call me pessimist, but I don't think Microsoft would have cared if it was MIT, GPL or even missing a license (so copyrighted by the author), they would have made the same choice as they just now did.

I'm sorry, but it's really hard to understand what you mean here, how choosing GPL would have somehow lead to a different outcome.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#534

Post by spankalee »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #118
vasco wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a megacorp wants your help to explain ANYTHING to them, you better be paid handsomely per hour. Wtf are people doing charity for trillion dollar empires.

It's also very possible they had been working on it already and wanted to compare notes, I certainly would if I were working on something internal and found a similar project, but I agree, ask them for a consultation fee. I don't see why they wouldn't pay it. Both projects also share in license, so I have less of an issue with it personally. They're both MIT licensed.

> I don't see why they wouldn't pay it.

It's not the money, it's the red tape. Setting up a new vendor, finding the right account, getting the PO approved. Even in a company where that stuff is relatively easy, it's way more friction than a simple meeting where you don't have to ask anyone for permission for anything.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#535

Post by Aperocky »

paxys wrote: post #338
jenadine wrote: post #215

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.

Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.

If I owe you $100 by contract, I can't just pay you with 1 ton of steel slab delivered to your garage and argue that this is worth more and therefore you should write the debt off.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#536

Post by didgetmaster »

3np wrote: post #512
didgetmaster wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author talks about changing his licensing as the only stone he can throw. As I understand it, changing the licensing will do nothing to affect the fork Microsoft already made. It might affect the next megacorp from doing the same thing in the future, but Microsoft can keep working on their fork without giving it a second thought. This is for sure a cautionary tale for every open source contributor. Choose the ori…

It would prevent MS from backporting new changes.

They might not be able to copy new code, but you can't stop them from fixing bugs that you also fixed, or adding similar new features as you (using code they wrote after carefully examining what you did).

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#537

Post by CrimsonRain »

rovr138 wrote: post #478
palata wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody claims they removed the author's copyright notice. I checked many source files in Spegel, and none of them contain an MIT header with copyright. I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...

https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's a license for the software. A software is a thing. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files > ... > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software…

the "fork" peerd is also MIT licensed and contains the same license file unless I'm mistaken.

So what does Microsoft need to do to be in compliance? I'm not being facetious here. Genuinely curious/want to learn.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#538

Post by Xelynega »

Salgat wrote: post #447
wat10000 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit.

I have the same reasoning as to why I pick the AGPLv3 license as the default for my new projects. I want any benefits from my code to continue to benefit everyone, even if someone is profiting off of it.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#539

Post by lofaszvanitt »

diggan wrote: post #3

> As a sole maintainer of an open source project, I was enthused when Microsoft reached out to set up a meeting to talk about Spegel. The meeting went well, and I felt there was going to be a path forward ripe with cooperation and hopefully a place where I could onboard new maintainers. Seems it isn't the first time Microsoft leads open source maintainers on, trying to extract information about their projects so they…

NO, just NO!

And this is done by the owners of Github. Throw away open source licenses, create your own, make anyone who forks your code perpetually pay for your work, or ask money for your work.

"Luckily, I persisted. Spegel still continues strong with over 1.7k stars and 14.4 million pulls"

Yeah, your time is your most precious resource and what you get in return? Recognition? virtual stars, pulls, essentially numbers, essentially nothing. And then you get robbed.

WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#540

Post by WalterBright »

WD-42 wrote: post #382
NobodyNada wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "pretty minor violation", that's the only condition of the MIT license. Yes, they mentioned Spegel, but only to thank the authors for "generously sharing their insights" -- that's not even close to the required statement that part of the project is owned and copyrighted by the authors of Spegel.

Ok, so MS will see this thread and re-add the missing header to a few files. You really think the author is going to then feel 100% better about it? They are just another data point in the long list of authors who chose a permissive license and are then shocked when a billion dollar company takes advantage of it.

The D programming language code is all Boost licensed and billion dollar companies are welcome to take advantage of it.
Post reply on HN