undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbayindirh1y ago0 comments

MIT doesn't need attribution. Original BSD does, but revised and most widespread BSDs do not.

GPL/AGPL would prevented this somehow, requiring proper attribution via mandatory source code release, and allowing to track project origins. This would make it harder to label it as a "a Microsoft Product from Ground Up", and prevent Sherlocking the original application to a greater degree.

As a result, this would probably forced Microsoft to develop a new one from scratch, because they're allergic to GPL, because if they have breached GPL, they would be forced to comply, since GPL is court tested already.

So, write Free Software. Not Open Source. Esp. for your personal projects.

0 comments

Zambyte1y ago

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Source: the MIT license.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

sublimefire1y ago

Yes and they do redistribute under MIT as well, there is no foul play here

Zambyte1y ago

https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/LICENSE

ahoka1y ago

They are essentially claiming copyright here for something they don't have the license for, no?

1 more reply

ryao1y ago

To be fair, Spegel changed the copyright notice in 2024. It used to say someone else. That said, Microsoft is definitely missing the notice.

1 more reply

Zambyte1y ago

Funnily enough, they did add the copyright notice now, and since I didn't permalink to the commit, this looks a bit silly :P

bayindirhOP1y ago

There's no writing in that license which I can't change the copyright after forking the code.

There's a copyright line, check. There's the permission notice, check.

The rest is just goodwill and ethics, which is not a very valuable currency in software in these days.

Zambyte1y ago

You can't just remove the above copyright notice and replace it with your own and claim you retained the copyright notice lol

bayindirhOP1y ago

Can you give me a couple examples how this is done? I mean, in terms of actual repositories.

2 more replies

throwaway2774321y ago

No!

Once you change the copyright line, you no longer include "the above copyright notice". At that point you're violating the license.

You are also not allowed to change the copyright notice or license text in any way (you may however add to the license, which is a loophole other licenses such as GPL fix.)

Substantial is subject to (legal) debate as the Oracle vs. MS case has shown. Whole functions or large parts of files however should always be considered substantial, as the software would otherwise not work.

I'm seriously flabbergasted at how bad reading comprehension seems to be among coders.

bayindirhOP1y ago

> I'm seriously flabbergasted at how bad reading comprehension seems to be among coders.

Sorry to deflate your amazement, but I made the remark because I have never seen a permissively licensed repository which changed hands and had multiple copyright lines in the last 20 years or so.

Maybe it's not my reading comprehension (and English is not my native language to begin with), but the behaviors of other coders to begin with.

Maybe we shouldn't point fingers to others and not forget that three are pointing towards ourselves. Eh?

2 more replies

jeremyjh1y ago

GPL/AGPL might have improved the attribution, but they would not have prevented anything else from happening because Microsoft is publishing the source code.

Asmod4n1y ago

GPL doesn’t help you with them taking your idea and doing a clean room implementation.

You’d need to patent your idea to stop that.

bayindirhOP1y ago

I never claimed that?

Citing myself from my comment:

> As a result, this would probably forced Microsoft to develop a new one from scratch, because they're allergic to GPL, because if they have breached GPL, they would be forced to comply, since GPL is court tested already.

So, we seem to agree here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Zambyte1y ago

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Source: the MIT license.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

sublimefire1y ago

Yes and they do redistribute under MIT as well, there is no foul play here

Zambyte1y ago

https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/LICENSE

ahoka1y ago

They are essentially claiming copyright here for something they don't have the license for, no?

1 more reply

ryao1y ago

To be fair, Spegel changed the copyright notice in 2024. It used to say someone else. That said, Microsoft is definitely missing the notice.

1 more reply

Zambyte1y ago

Funnily enough, they did add the copyright notice now, and since I didn't permalink to the commit, this looks a bit silly :P

bayindirhOP1y ago

There's no writing in that license which I can't change the copyright after forking the code.

There's a copyright line, check. There's the permission notice, check.

The rest is just goodwill and ethics, which is not a very valuable currency in software in these days.

Zambyte1y ago

You can't just remove the above copyright notice and replace it with your own and claim you retained the copyright notice lol

bayindirhOP1y ago

Can you give me a couple examples how this is done? I mean, in terms of actual repositories.

2 more replies

throwaway2774321y ago

No!

Once you change the copyright line, you no longer include "the above copyright notice". At that point you're violating the license.

You are also not allowed to change the copyright notice or license text in any way (you may however add to the license, which is a loophole other licenses such as GPL fix.)

I'm seriously flabbergasted at how bad reading comprehension seems to be among coders.

bayindirhOP1y ago

> I'm seriously flabbergasted at how bad reading comprehension seems to be among coders.

Maybe it's not my reading comprehension (and English is not my native language to begin with), but the behaviors of other coders to begin with.

Maybe we shouldn't point fingers to others and not forget that three are pointing towards ourselves. Eh?

2 more replies

jeremyjh1y ago

GPL/AGPL might have improved the attribution, but they would not have prevented anything else from happening because Microsoft is publishing the source code.

Asmod4n1y ago

GPL doesn’t help you with them taking your idea and doing a clean room implementation.

You’d need to patent your idea to stop that.

bayindirhOP1y ago

I never claimed that?

Citing myself from my comment:

So, we seem to agree here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse