This is why when I'm at work, I advocate for a closed fork rather than an open one.
That being said, it's not cool to remove the attribution even internally. Then again, I use MIT without the attribution clause for this very reason.
Getting forked by Microsoft
901–910 of 1001 posts
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#902Earlier 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…
No. Free software was conceived to help end users. Open source was created to fight that and instead help megacorps take without giving anything back.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#903Kudos to the author for sticking with Spegel and continuing to support the community, even after that kind of demoralizing experience
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#904That is why I only choose extremes with my open source licensing. If I really don't care then I go with a CC0 1.0 license. If I want any participation or credit for the work at all then I go the other extreme: AGPL 3.0. If that, and only that, means people will refuse to look at the project then I know I have chosen wisely.
I get a certain sense of pride every time a developer tells me to change my license and when I say no he tells me he'll go and use something else (and I'm supposed to feel bad about this, for some reason).
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#905In 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…
A good reminder that we're allowed to value our time and expertise, especially when dealing with companies that can pay but often hope you'll give it away for free in the name of "collaboration."
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#906Earlier 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…
It's fine that you think corporations are supposed to work that way, and I don't necessarily disagree. But they don't in practice. They don't feel the consequences of bad actions because of legal economies of scale. They also don't backpropagate consequences from the company's bottom line to the individuals responsible. If you were to rectify this so that it works exactly as you envision, you would have made incredib…
The tricky part is how we, as a community, actually build those levers of individual accountability without veering into mob justice
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#907My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community. The problem this addresses is not that Microsoft forked this project. The problem is that when a corporation like Microsoft does this, they harm our community[0]. Open source thrives because a bunch of individuals and groups collaborate. Microsoft, is built around the concept of profit for stock owners a…
I think a lot of people in the OSS world are feeling this tension more acutely now.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#908Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the tone of the response to Microsoft response, people will not be happy unless Microsoft publicly executed the engineers that did it.
I think people tend to forget that large companies are made up of flawed individuals and their policies mitigate but don't eliminate mistakes
They are also fully funded to compensate when they do something wrong. An apology from a Fortune 500 company with a history of unethical behavior is worthless.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#909Hi Philip, I'm Lachlan from the Cloud Native Ecosystem team at Microsoft. Our team works in the cloud native open-source community with a goal of being great open-source collaborators in these projects and communities, and I’m sorry that this happened. We appreciate your leadership and collaboration on Spegel and see your project solving a real challenge for the cloud native community. I wanted to thank you for your…
Give him a share of the money you make off of it.
60% of $0 is still $0.
Re: Getting forked by Microsoft
#910Hi Philip, I'm Lachlan from the Cloud Native Ecosystem team at Microsoft. Our team works in the cloud native open-source community with a goal of being great open-source collaborators in these projects and communities, and I’m sorry that this happened. We appreciate your leadership and collaboration on Spegel and see your project solving a real challenge for the cloud native community. I wanted to thank you for your…
> When you spoke with our engineers about implementing artifact streaming you said it was probably out of scope for Spegel at that time, which made sense. It seems like it would have been a much better strategy to add artifact streaming, submit a pull request and then if the maintainer isn't interested in adding it, proceeding with a fork. "Probably out of scope" sounds like "I dont have time to implement a feature o…
It sounds more like "I don't want to maintain a feature of that scope" or "I don't want to commit to the design decisions this feature would require". Both of those aren't solved by a PR.
If you're discussing with potential collaborators and want to communicate that you don't have time to develop such and such a feature but would be open to accepting a PR, it's very natural to say "I don't have time to develop this feature but would be open to accepting a PR".