undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMyOutfitIsVague1y ago0 comments

MIT license requires attribution, not "a copyright header". It's not concerned when headers, or with sources being pristine, but with people being credited. If I release my software MIT-licenced, but don't have copyright headers, you are not free to copy files without crediting me.

And no, their note in the readme is not an attribution. It's thanking them for "sharing their insights", which in no way is code attribution.

Microsoft violated copyright here, bar none. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

0 comments

palata1y ago

Right, they should copy the LICENCE file somewhere in their repo. Why not opening a PR, before writing a blog against Microsoft?

They actually thanked the project, it doesn't feel like they were trying to steal it. Maybe they will just accept such a PR and that's all.

MyOutfitIsVagueOP1y ago

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I refuse to believe that Microsoft doesn't understand how attribution, copyright, or open source licenses work, though. I believe this is a mistake, but it's a very egregious one that showcases a lack of respect for the communities that Microsoft is exploiting. This mistake should not be possible from an entity like Microsoft.

palata1y ago

Maybe the engineers did not go through a 12 months process with their legal department and did it wrong.

And with the bad publicity coming back to Microsoft, maybe those engineers will now understand that they should just avoid re-using open source projects when possible. And the next HN post will be about "BigTech reinvents the wheel in order to have control".

We're all nitpicking here: they mentioned the original project in the README. Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch.

Sure, they should do it right. But really, a polite, small PR fixing that would probably be a good first step.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

palata1y ago

Right, they should copy the LICENCE file somewhere in their repo. Why not opening a PR, before writing a blog against Microsoft?

They actually thanked the project, it doesn't feel like they were trying to steal it. Maybe they will just accept such a PR and that's all.

MyOutfitIsVagueOP1y ago

palata1y ago

Maybe the engineers did not go through a 12 months process with their legal department and did it wrong.

We're all nitpicking here: they mentioned the original project in the README. Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch.

Sure, they should do it right. But really, a polite, small PR fixing that would probably be a good first step.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse