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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#641

Post by shahzaibmushtaq »

NobodyNada wrote: post #431
WD-42 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't speak for the author, but I when I release code as open-source I think carefully about the license that I use (usually either MIT, GPL, or CC0). If I choose MIT, then it's because I'm fine with companies "taking advantage" of my code. I'd probably mainly feel glad that I created something useful to someone. What I'm not OK with is a company doing that without attribution. If XYZ company's product is built on…

I second that.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#642

Post by BeetleB »

joshuaissac wrote: post #543
BeetleB wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then.

> Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then. The MIT licence already requires attribution, and that is what the author picked.

The person I was responding to began with "Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements", and it is clear in his comment that he's not referring to the OP's issue, but the issue in general.

In other words, he's saying that even if it had been some other license, he wants attribution.

That's silly. If you want attribution, say it up front (which could simply mean picking the MIT license).

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#643

Post by bradgessler »

echelon wrote: post #605
siva7 wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, charity. That's exactly what these trillion dollar empires think of those open source maintainers. Microsoft pulled this same stunt multiple times on os maintainers.

Open source has been hijacked by trillion dollar hyperscalers. It's time we switch to "fair source" or "equitable source". Put MAU/DAU/ARR/market cap limits in your license. Open to everyone with a market cap under $1B or revenues under $100M. All others, please see our "business@" email. Place viral terms like the AGPL that requires that all other systems touched by your code to be open - especially the backend/serv…

I did this with https://terminalwire.com/

I’m still tweaking the execution of the license, but in principle my thinking is, “if you’re using my software to make money, and you’re making a lot of money, you should probably be paying me to use my software”.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#644

Post by hnlurker22 »

finnh wrote: post #631
hnlurker22 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's weird they didn't mention anything about Peerd or their plans on how to use Spegel to the author. They could've atleast said "btw we plan to do xyz" instead of leaving the author fantasizing about a collab.

"fantasizing about a collab" sounds like the world of sneakers, not software. What does that even mean in the world of software?

Dreaming of a contribution from Microsoft

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#645

Post by Graphon1 »

thwarted wrote: post #552
kergonath wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. Quite the contrary. The licence does not have many constraints, but this one is important. Volunteer developers let their code being used in closed source commercial programs. Recognition is the only thing they expect and the whole point of the licence.

"There won't be any money, but we won't properly credit you and you'll won't even get any exposure". Not even offering exposure anymore.

There won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive _total consciousness_.

--Carl Spackler, quoting the Dalai Lama

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#646

Post by WD-42 »

immibis wrote: post #638
echelon wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source has been hijacked by trillion dollar hyperscalers. It's time we switch to "fair source" or "equitable source". Put MAU/DAU/ARR/market cap limits in your license. Open to everyone with a market cap under $1B or revenues under $100M. All others, please see our "business@" email. Place viral terms like the AGPL that requires that all other systems touched by your code to be open - especially the backend/serv…

There was already a term - "free software". "Open source" was literally created as a corporation-safe neutered form of "free software".

It still boggles my mind that people don't understand this. The FUD and misinformation that's been spreading about the GPL and the FSF the last decade almost seems like an intentional campaign brought on by exactly those who benefit from you using a "permissive" license the most.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#647

Post by jandrewrogers »

cogman10 wrote: post #586
giancarlostoro wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Oh I do. The person that wanted to setup the meeting likely has no budget control. Big corps like to keep the ability to pay for stuff out of the hands of individuals and isolated in bureaucratic nightmares. You'd be more than reasonable to demand "$1000/hr with 1 hour minimum" for such a consulting and I'd see HR in MS doing an immediate "hell no" to that.

Microsoft has mechanisms to enable exactly this kind of arrangement to happen.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#648

Post by tick_tock_tick »

evantbyrne wrote: post #381
palata wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license. Did they remove the copyright? All the source files I checked in Spegel don't have a copyright header. To me it feels like it's the author's mistake.

Forks don't get to pretend that licenses don't exist just because they don't like the placement in the source.

Correct the code is still under the license they just don't have to add it to every file if it's not there.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#649

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

gunalx wrote: post #219
gus_massa wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL does not allow binary blobs. MIT and BSD doe.

You are perfectly fine to include your own binary blobs with your own GPL licensed source, you are not violating the gpl as the binary blobs was never under GPL.

and as long as the binary blobs are not derivatives of GPL'ed code ...

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#650

Post by gus_massa »

taftster wrote: post #409
gus_massa wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can billg make a repo with win.com and win.bat, and use the GPL licence because the win.bat is the source code and win.com is only a binary blob?

Assuming that win.com is able to be stand alone and doesn't require win.bat, then yes, Bill can license both of these components separately, one under the GPL and another proprietary. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) describes this copyleft aspect of the GPL in terms of "derivative works" associated with GPL-licensed software. When two components are related to each other in a derivative way, then the GPL says that…

The GP says:

>>> At this point I'd include some of the code as binary blobs and "pay me for the source!". In addition to GPL!

So, the proposal is to hide the source code and IIUC if someone does this, the whole complete project can not be released as GPL.

Post reply on HN