981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. What would you prefer them do? A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? I agree with the sentiment with these types of comments (I hate PR fluff too), but the aggression when a…
Well how does Microsoft react if some company "forgets" to licence windows/office/some other product? Because that is what happened here a clear licence violation so Microsoft essentially pirated the software.
This was MIT licensed open source software and an attribution clause was not properly respected. Hardly piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A flash in the pan about a random fork they have on Github with It baffles me that HN has no idea how large organizations work. The boss's boss's boss has no idea what random worker bees are doing.
The way you underestimate how companies deal with potential PR problems tells me all I need to know about your corporate experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A flash in the pan about a random fork they have on Github with It baffles me that HN has no idea how large organizations work. The boss's boss's boss has no idea what random worker bees are doing.
So what's your point? That megacorps shouldn't be accountable for the actions of their employees? That people saying otherwise are clueless and should shut up?
How you reckon with that, what you take away from it, is up to you. If you want to hold MS corporate responsible for every decision Aditya and Piotr and Zhong make, you can feel free to, but it won't help you understand how these decisions are made because it's wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or they're not actually running the company at all Executives are not micro-managing day-to-day implementation decisions of every team, no. They set broad strategic goals, the management layers below them decide how to best operationalize those goals, and the layers below those middle managers make specific implementation decisions to execute those operations. If you want to think of this as "not actually running t…
You don't have to be personally making the decisions in order to be responsible for them. That's also the way the world works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or they're not actually running the company at all Executives are not micro-managing day-to-day implementation decisions of every team, no. They set broad strategic goals, the management layers below them decide how to best operationalize those goals, and the layers below those middle managers make specific implementation decisions to execute those operations. If you want to think of this as "not actually running t…
What initiative will executive at microsoft take now that this post became popular? No initiative? Then it's 100% their fault.
Not a single Microsoft C-suite exec, or anyone within spitting distance of the C-suite, will ever hear about this. Do not mistake your personal media bubble for the general media ecosystem.
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…
Give him a share of the money you make off of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. What would you prefer them do? A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? I agree with the sentiment with these types of comments (I hate PR fluff too), but the aggression when a…
They say:
> We hear you loud and clear and are going to make sure we improve our processes to help us be better stewards in the open-source community. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention. We will improve the way we work and collaborate in open source and are always open to feedback.
…which is a lot of nice words with absolutely NO accountability. They could write a sticky note “do better” and technically that’s all that’s required from their side. Is that okay with you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a lawyer, but what I understand from that is, if Apple authorizes use of bash under GPLv3, and then Apple decides it has a patent on something and bash is infringing on that patent, Apple can't go sue their customers for patent infringement because they are using bash. I'm 99% sure that's the intent of the clause. Lawyers are famously pessimistic and so I can see why they wouldn't want to test that, but seri…
As I understand it, it's more difficult than that... though I'm not a lawyer. Let's say {some company} and Apple have a cross patent licensing for some set of patents. Apple releases some softer under GPLv3. {Some company} sues someone else for a patent in bash. Since Apple licenses that patent and distributes bash, Apple is now obligated ("must act to shield") the distribution of bash that includes that patent. If y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to be personally making the decisions in order to be responsible for them. That's also the way the world works.
Microsoft has north of 100k SWEs working for them, the idea that corporate management could be personally responsible for the decisions of every single one is absurd.
Rephrasing it - there’s a reason it’s Zuckerberg and Pichai and Tim Cook who go to congress, and not the folks implementing it on the ground level.