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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#971

Post by saulpw »

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #924
saulpw wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the freedom to change the software to the user's needs. How is this not exactly helping end-users? Corporations are producers, not users. And no one is complaining about MSFT or any other corporation using OSS as users, but only about co-opting it as a producer.

The corporations _are_ end-users. They're just using a project to make adoption of their platform easier. Just because a user passes on the benefit of their usage to more than a single human doesn't mean they're not a user.

Sometimes corporations are end-users. When someone creates a fork of a project, they are no longer an end-user; they have become a producer.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#972

Post by nu11ptr »

kstrauser wrote: post #797
nu11ptr wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very easy to accidently use a GPL library without knowing it, especially if it is a dependency of a dependency and you aren't using a license scanner.

It’s very easy to do all sorts of incorrect stuff if you totally ignore your responsibilities. If you're not redistributing the GPL library, then it doesn't matter. If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches.

> If you are, then there are all sorts of other licenses which come with the same (or greater) headaches.

I avoid those as well

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#973

Post by cutemonster »

kazinator wrote: post #879
sureIy wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as well, but simply to understand why Microsoft would even waste time discussing the rate for a 2-day workshop.

I'm guessing that somebody pitched it to their superiors as a free solution with all the source code they could just take over and use, and now they had to have an awkward conversation about spending some money on the author. At which point it behooved them for it to at least be as cheap as possible.

jxf replied here about the rate:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43761735

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#974

Post by ahepp »

pabs3 wrote: post #845
ahepp wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that bring us right back to GPL family licenses?

The GPL doesn't require contributing back, only contributing forward to users.

It seems pretty difficult to legally hide useful code from a GPL upstream.

But, if the argument is that the GPL is too permissive to achieve what the author wants, why on earth was the author using the MIT license?

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#975

Post by optymizer »

tacker2000 wrote: post #744
lachie83 wrote: post #722

Hi 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…

Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. An org the size of MS should have clear policies and processes of how to handle open source forks like this. Unless we assume “bad faith” here. This is a pretty bad look. I wonder how many other projects are not attributed correctly. Are you checking up on them also or just waiting for the next HN post? That said, the author of Spegel should have u…

This tsk-tsk is misguided. There's a time and place to shame companies for acting in bad faith, and we should do it, but I don't think it's the case here. It does not seem like damage control for intentional malice.

The TL on the project should have done better, but it was a good sign that they had originally taken the time to acknowledge Spegel's author's help. It's very likely that someone else dealt with the actual code and license text and didn't know any better.

The PR text is reviewed by lawyers. The default advice from lawyers is "do not admit any wrongdoing". They probably suggested that the license text be fixed silently with no apology. The PR department likely convinced them that a public apology would be good for optics and it doesn't seem soulless either.

They should have done better. They admitted that. They may or may not change their internal processes, but it's now in the record book. Case closed.

And the author of Spegel should not have used a different license if he wanted "more >". He wanted the recognition specified by the MIT license.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#976

Post by johnisgood »

renewiltord wrote: post #966
johnisgood wrote: post #964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but try not paying taxes. :/ You pay taxes even when you buy products at the grocery stores, too.

Indeed. Hence "just following orders". Ultimately, I don't believe in this kind of strong culpability but it's clear the people who claim they do don't either and just bring it up when convenient.

Do you have any solutions?

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#977

Post by palata »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #969
palata wrote: post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Ignorance is not a surprise or a fault. Anyone choosing to act from ignorance very much is. 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.

I will reiterate that most developers I know have almost no idea how open source licences work.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#978

Post by wilg »

guappa wrote: post #936
Mashimo wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the benefit of re-writing the git history?

Complying with the terms of use instead of infringing copyright

The terms of the license don’t require you to modify the git history that’s a goofy interpretation.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#979

Post by andrewaylett »

ryao wrote: post #885
andrewaylett wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but part of that is the original author’s fault No: the original author could have made it easier to comply, and you could argue that he acted foolishly in not doing so, but that doesn't make it his fault .

Then who is responsible for his failure to add proper notices to the files? Microsoft? If someone wanted to transplant only a subset of files from one project to another, there would have been no copyright notices to retain.

The copyright notice in the LICENSE file was still there. Bring it along for the ride -- either by putting all the files in one subdirectory, or by referencing it from each file, or by adding a note letting people know which files were under which copyright. They could even have also added copyright headers to each of the files in question.

There's more than one way for Microsoft to have retained the required attribution. The problem is that they didn't pick any of them. The author offered them valuable code, and the requirements of the license weren't onerous -- if they're unwilling to follow them, they should just not use the code.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#980

Post by frumplestlatz »

palata wrote: post #977
frumplestlatz wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorance is not a surprise or a fault. Anyone choosing to act from ignorance very much is. 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.

I will reiterate that most developers I know have almost no idea how open source licences work.

That’s willful ignorance at this point, and they shouldn’t be incorporating open source code into their projects without speaking to an attorney or someone otherwise qualified to answer their questions.
Post reply on HN