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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#991

Post by unsungNovelty »

saulpw wrote: post #971
d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK. But that is allowed right? "Sharing" and "redistribute" are words you should have heard if you know what OSS. You are missing the whole point of Open Sourcing code. What you want is source available or proprietary software if you are bothered by this. And at that point, this has nothing to do with OSS.

This is literally why when a company stops open sourcing something, community or other company continues the fork. When a product fails as business and when open sourced, the software itself thrives.

Let me re-iterate, Open Source is purely about the software and the capability to share and make changes. IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, BUSINESS, CAPITALISM etc etc etc.

It is not even about collaboration. That is something that came out of Linux development which is one of the most famous Open Source project. All that is necessary is to make the software licensed under an OSS license. And I don't have to get PR from you, I don't need to accept outside collaboration etc etc.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#992

Post by guappa »

wilg wrote: post #978
guappa wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The terms of the license require you to ship the copyright note. Their latest release is in violation…

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#993

Post by LtWorf »

nickelpro wrote: post #986
LtWorf wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What initiative will executive at microsoft take now that this post became popular? No initiative? Then it's 100% their fault.

This post isn't popular, it has already fallen off the HN frontpage never to be seen again in any context. It did not and will never break into any sort of traditional media. 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.

Yeah managers aren't supposed to learn what's going on in their company from the press :D

Of all the bad arguments, this is the worse.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#994

Post by mauer1361 »

averageRoyalty wrote: post #950
tacker2000 wrote: post #744

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…

>A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? Yes, great idea.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#995

Post by hmottestad »

averageRoyalty wrote: post #950
tacker2000 wrote: post #744

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…

What would Microsoft do if I forked their repo, removed all the licenses and then held talks at conferences about my amazing new tool?

Pretty sure their legal department would have my fork obliterated from the face of the earth and I would be crossing my fingers that all I got was a cease and desist letter instead of a lawsuit in Texas.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#996

Post by platz »

unethical_ban wrote: post #511
hresvelgr wrote: post #17

While Microsoft is certainly in the wrong for removing the copyright notice, I think the author has zero basis for complaint otherwise. If you're going to release software with one of the most permissable licenses, you need to accept that for all it entails. Consider what you're comfortable with and pick an appropriate license relative to your values.

The author said that in the last line. Highlight the part of the essay where he is claiming MS didn't have a right to do what they did. The point of the article was that MS showed interest in his work, asked him about his designs. Said nothing about internal plans to fork it or use it. Then he shows up to a talk and sees them discussing his work. Reading between the lines, it is 100% clear they didn't feel like telli…

Licenses communicate your intent; if you choose the most permissive one possible that is also implicitly communicated.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#997

Post by simondotau »

0xTJ wrote: post #436
simondotau wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said it can’t be used commercially? Just because they can’t profit from it doesn’t stop them using it.

From the post to which I replied: "If you want to use it commercially, pay for it.". I am replying to them talking about a license that prevent commercial use.

Ah, my mistake. It's an interesting idea for a license. "Free for non-commercial use" is an idea often used in closed source software, but not open source. If a software license like this doesn't already exist, it should, so that software developers can easily choose it.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#998

Post by Shocka1 »

cmgriffing wrote: post #772
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…

I think this is a good case for applying Hanlon's Razor. The person that did the forking and removal of copyright text may simply not know that it needed to stay there. I would love to know what processes MS is considering to prevent this in the future as well as what kind of auditing might be done to look at other projects that started as forks.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if an expert Leetcoder simply copy/pasted the code, knowing nothing of licensing. What would surprise me though is the engineering team not having at least one open source expert that didn't intervene.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#999

Post by toobulkeh »

wilg wrote: post #790
tacker2000 wrote: post #744

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…

I mean what else are they supposed to say or do to correct a mistake other than "sorry, here's what happened, we have fixed it, we are taking steps to reduce the chances of it happening again"? Sometimes you just have to correct an error.

I think financial damages are realistic here. They materially damaged another brand, it’s all business at the end of the day.

Re: Getting forked by Microsoft

#1000

Post by mmaunder »

sokoloff wrote: post #724
mmaunder wrote: post #711

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.

GPL only requires you to contribute changes if you distribute the program (not if you just use it internally).

This project was. “A negative impact from the creation of Peerd is that it has created confusion among new users. I am frequently asked about the differences between Spegel and Peerd.”
Post reply on HN