961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’ve funded Abu Ghraib (by paying the US government) then you’re criminally culpable. And don’t try the Nuremberg Defense on me: “I was just following orders to pay every April 15”
You're just repeating what you said above without incorporating what I posted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’ve funded Abu Ghraib (by paying the US government) then you’re criminally culpable. And don’t try the Nuremberg Defense on me: “I was just following orders to pay every April 15”
> by paying the US government Directly, or indirectly through taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The person that did the forking and removal of copyright text may simply not know that it needed to stay there. That person never learned what plagiarism is throughout their entire academic career, much less once they landed at Microsoft?
Most software developers I know have no clue how open source licences work. Hell, I have been reading a lot about them (including the licences themselves and stuff like the GPL FAQ) many times, and in situations like this it's still not entirely clear to me what Microsoft should do (surely there are different valid ways to handle this). Would you consider yourself competent as a lawyer regarding open source licences?…
This isn’t complicated, but if you truly don’t understand it then you should speak to a lawyer before incorporating someone else’s code into your or your employer’s project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most software developers I know have no clue how open source licences work. Hell, I have been reading a lot about them (including the licences themselves and stuff like the GPL FAQ) many times, and in situations like this it's still not entirely clear to me what Microsoft should do (surely there are different valid ways to handle this). Would you consider yourself competent as a lawyer regarding open source licences?…
Compliance here is simple — preserve the original license and copyright. This isn’t complicated, but if you truly don’t understand it then you should speak to a lawyer before incorporating someone else’s code into your or your employer’s project.
Have you read the threads here? My feeling is that there are many mutually exclusive interpretations of what can/should be done.
I don't know if it's simple or not, but what I see is that it's obviously not 100% clear for everybody (me included).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indirectly is sufficient. You're paying for it to happen.
Yeah, but try not paying taxes. :/ You pay taxes even when you buy products at the grocery stores, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original author can change their own notice. Why would that be a problem?
Well they could technically have proper attribution without the literal string "Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors" if they included an older copyright notice that was more appropriate. I think that was the point they were making.
The hacker news post reached someone high enough up at Microsoft to have things changed. They ended placing a combined copyright notice that is a mixture of both versions into the repository to play it safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they forked from before the author had a license, it’s worse. MS had no right to use it. You are right, provided he did not have a notice saying it was MIT licensed elsewhere. > I’ve contributed to plenty of project that don’t have the per-file copyrights. It’s a choice not a mistake. I would consider it to be both a choice and a mistake. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no evidence in the fork that…
> There is no evidence in the fork that he is the copyright holder of the original code and it looks like Microsoft is. Only because they removed the license and copyright. If they were willing to do that in 1 file, they are willing to do it in many. It's not the authors mistake in any way shape or form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compliance here is simple — preserve the original license and copyright. This isn’t complicated, but if you truly don’t understand it then you should speak to a lawyer before incorporating someone else’s code into your or your employer’s project.
> Compliance here is simple Have you read the threads here? My feeling is that there are many mutually exclusive interpretations of what can/should be done. I don't know if it's simple or not, but what I see is that it's obviously not 100% clear for everybody (me included).
I reiterate that this is not complicated. If you still find it complicated, then you need to speak to an attorney or someone else qualified to give you direction before attempting to use someone else’s code.
We have been doing this for nearly 60 years. Correct examples abound if you’re willing to do basic research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the goal of this? I ask because I think the nice thing about the current system is that the goals are well represented/easy to sum up and defendable. What would be the goal of a license between AGPL and SSPL on the spectrum? Seems like such a license would at the very least be non-free? (which is perfectly ok)
Some projects choose AGPL because they incorrectly read that it requires dependencies like calling web services or the underlying configuration management to be open source (such as Minio). SSPL goes beyond this and requires an unsatisfiable amount of dependencies to be open source. There should be a middle ground for folks like Minio and others that want to prevent competitive hosted offerings as that's how they fun…
Do you consider the SSPL to be free? If so, this would be. If not, it probably would not be. Why does SSPL require unsatisfiable numbers of dependencies by the way? It seems pretty clear to me (though, clearly, not free).
> if you can just launder code through a LLM and magically remove any licensing for it.
If you can actually do this, I look forward to unencumbered Windows-compatible source code having run variously leaked source through copilot.