If you want them to contribute back changes, use a license that makes them contribute back changes, like GPL. Don’t ever “default to” a license.
Getting forked by Microsoft
711–720 of 1001 posts
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#712This is why I wrote the SAUCR license [1] for my full-stack JavaScript framework. A lot of OSS developers get "got" by the ideological arguments of OSS and shy away from doing "source available" (which if we set down the Kool-Aid, is in effect open source because...the source is open). If you're an independent or small team and want to protect your IP as best you can while keeping source available for learning/auditi…
That's not a license, it's wishful thinking in template form. The fact that you have "fill in the blanks here" in a "legal" document makes this actively harmful. I respect the sentiment, but it's entirely the wrong direction. Better looking at the Creative Commons license picker/builder as a better example of a starting point.
> The fact that you have "fill in the blanks here" in a "legal" document makes this actively harmful.
It doesn't. At the end of the day, all legal documents are just words on a page. When in doubt, you can hire a lawyer or paralegal to review what you've written to ensure it's sound.
This is why people keep getting burned. They make foolish excuses, use the wrong licenses, and then they're surprised when a big fish swallows them whole.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you worked at a megacorp you’d know they care a whole lot about not allowing GPL code anywhere near their propertiary repos; this is usually enforced by IT security (NOT engineering) with dedicated scanners, confirmed matches are at least highest priority bugs.
Not just mega corps. Everywhere I've worked for the past 10+ years treats GPL code like leprosy. You just don't go anywhere near it for any reason. It's the first thing you look for when taking on a new external dependency.
Yeah, giving massive corporations a free ride has been incredibly successful for corporations. For their users not so much.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#714https://github.com/Azure/peerd/pull/110
> fix: amend copyright attributions #110 > > This commit amends copyright attributions that were omitted due to an oversight on part of the Peerd authors. Copyright header attributions in a few files have been updated to include "2023 Xenit AB and 2024 The Spegel Authors". The attribution in the LICENSE file has also been updated to reflect the same.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#715FWIW one of the maintainer just added this to comply with the license: https://github.com/avtakkar/peerd/commit/57ebeeb853effb211ae...
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the prerequisites for a successful negotiation is the willingness to walk away. This applies to both sides. I did consulting for a few years, years ago, and you'd be surprised what people are willing to pay. You'd also never know that unless you named your rate and were willing to walk away. I'm pretty sure any manager at Microsoft could easily swing a couple K. The main complication would be that this wouldn'…
> you'd be surprised what people are willing to pay. At least in my company, it very much depends on who's initiating the meeting. If one of our VPs did, then easy, any amount could be approved. However, if it's a team lead, we'd be told to pound sand. I assumed other companies would be pretty similar.
But realize, that from the standpoint of the OP someone who can't swing a couple of K also can't swing a couple hundred thousand K _per year_ to hire more contributors or provide other funding to the project. They are, therefore, completely pointless to talk to - the decision makers won't be in the room.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I see AGPL project, I close the page, and I believe many others would do the same.
Why?
Because they listen to fear mongering or would prefer to ask nicely that megacorps be kind to their users instead of just using a tool with legal teeth.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were folks under the impression there were other options for license violations? Your comment implies that a lawsuit being the only recourse to enforce a license renders that license moot.
Some people just hoped that picking a corporate-unfriendly license would be enough of a deterrent by itself, because most folks can't actually afford to sue. But infringers, big and small, are increasingly realising that these licenses are toothless by themselves, they need to be backed by money.
On the other side, some people hoped that picking a "corporate-friendly" license would make megacorps good citizens. It has worked out poorly.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#719If you want them to contribute back changes, use a license that makes them contribute back changes, like GPL. Don’t ever “default to” a license.
Defaulting to a license is the default behavior.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the shareholders didn't vote on it, or an exec didn't explicitly say "hey steal this" does not absolve the company. Leadership doesn't get to throw up their hands and say "not my fault" when something bad happens. It is ultimately the responsibility of the company and its people to create a system where things like this are discouraged or prohibited. Not doing so is tacit approval, especially in this cas…
[flagged]
My observation ( for other such (similiar) war events) is that investigations by the instigators country will lead to very less serious punishments for the instigators and "down playing" of the harm from such events