undefined | Better HN

0 pointsryao11mo ago0 comments

The commit histories for the LICENSE files in the two repositories are rather interesting. The original author placed a single copyright notice in that file. Microsoft on the other hand published it with their copyright notice and a Apache 2.0 license in place of the original copyright notice and MIT license. They also put copyright Microsoft and license apache 2.0 headers on all files. They then changed the Apache 2.0 license to MIT, but left their copyright notice in place of the original copyright notice in LICENSE:

https://github.com/Azure/peerd/commit/473a26c808907f2d9f7b7f...

Unless they forked a very early version that did not even have the LICENSE file, such that they never removed the original notice, this looks like copyright infringement to me. That said, I am not a lawyer.

0 comments

throwaway27743211mo ago

>chore: change to MIT license

What does "chore" mean in this context? Is the license just leftover from some MS open source template? If so there is perhaps some leeway, and the author maybe just didn't realize he needed to use the original MIT license file including the notices and not just a template one grabbed from the internet.

Any other explanation for such a "relicensing" would be extremely worrisome.

croemer11mo ago

"chore" is a common conventional commit message type, see https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

jeremyjh11mo ago

"chore" just means the type of change; as opposed to a fix, a feature, refactoring, there are some things that you have to do in the repo that can be called "chores".

staunton11mo ago

I'd say, in this case "chore" means "boring, nothing to see here".

layer811mo ago

It's interesting, because "chore" to me has strong connotations of "tedious, unpleasant".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse