6 ms·

Violated by the removal of author's copyright notice.

pjmlp 1y ago
Adding the copyright notice to be in compliance, does not change the fact that the author has chosen a licence that allows anyone, including Microsoft, to do whatever they feel like, without giving back. So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.
- Nemo_bis 1y ago
  Microsoft did not bother to respect even the MIT license, so clearly the license is not the problem.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Not arguing for Microsoft, rather the fact that people put out MIT licenced stuff out there, or similar, arguing how bad GPL happens to be, and then get all up in arms when companies do exactly what the licence allows for. Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.
    - Nemo_bis 1y ago
      I don't disagree with the general point but in this case we're looking at what (seems to be) a blatant copyright violation. It would not be any more or less of a violation if the infringed license had been a more or less permissive one, because the license has not been followed. Sure, the MIT is very permissive so it's very easy for Microsoft to correct their repository so that it's in compliance for the future, but they cannot correct the past. (Unless the original authors allow for it.) The MIT license, being so short, does not have a provision about curing infringements. So Microsoft seems to be ok with the risk of being sued for infringement etc. That's not something you can correct with your personal decisions as author.
      - ComplexSystems 1y ago
        The point is that the author would not really be much happier if Microsoft had added a few lines admitting substantial portions of code were taken from Spegel. They probably will do this, but I doubt he will be satisfied with the result either way. The comment above, which I mostly agree with, is that the point of the MIT license to permit anyone, including large corporations, doing this kind of thing. Since this doesn't seem like an outcome the author is happy with, maybe a different license would be better.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    That doesn't mean that they would have completely ignored all implications of any other license. The author of the code chose a license that explicitly allows exactly what happened, other than Microsoft did not include a text file that nobody is going to read.
palata 1y ago
Everybody claims they removed the author's copyright notice. I checked many source files in Spegel, and none of them contain an MIT header with copyright. I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
- rovr138 1y ago
  https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's a license for the software. A software is a thing. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files > ... > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  - palata 1y ago
    Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of that LICENSE somewhere in their codebase?
    - rovr138 1y ago
      No, not somewhere. That’s the license. If they reuse it, they have to use that license.
      - palata 1y ago
        This is wrong. Peerd can use whatever licence they want that is compatible with the MIT licence for the code they imported from Spegel.
    - SpaceNugget 1y ago
      Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread. You: > I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one... Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to: > The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...

Adding the copyright notice to be in compliance, does not change the fact that the author has chosen a licence that allows anyone, including Microsoft, to do whatever they feel like, without giving back. So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.

Nemo_bis 1y ago
Microsoft did not bother to respect even the MIT license, so clearly the license is not the problem.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Not arguing for Microsoft, rather the fact that people put out MIT licenced stuff out there, or similar, arguing how bad GPL happens to be, and then get all up in arms when companies do exactly what the licence allows for. Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.
  - Nemo_bis 1y ago
    I don't disagree with the general point but in this case we're looking at what (seems to be) a blatant copyright violation. It would not be any more or less of a violation if the infringed license had been a more or less permissive one, because the license has not been followed. Sure, the MIT is very permissive so it's very easy for Microsoft to correct their repository so that it's in compliance for the future, but they cannot correct the past. (Unless the original authors allow for it.) The MIT license, being so short, does not have a provision about curing infringements. So Microsoft seems to be ok with the risk of being sued for infringement etc. That's not something you can correct with your personal decisions as author.
    - ComplexSystems 1y ago
      The point is that the author would not really be much happier if Microsoft had added a few lines admitting substantial portions of code were taken from Spegel. They probably will do this, but I doubt he will be satisfied with the result either way. The comment above, which I mostly agree with, is that the point of the MIT license to permit anyone, including large corporations, doing this kind of thing. Since this doesn't seem like an outcome the author is happy with, maybe a different license would be better.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  That doesn't mean that they would have completely ignored all implications of any other license. The author of the code chose a license that explicitly allows exactly what happened, other than Microsoft did not include a text file that nobody is going to read.

palata 1y ago

Everybody claims they removed the author's copyright notice. I checked many source files in Spegel, and none of them contain an MIT header with copyright. I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...

rovr138 1y ago
https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's a license for the software. A software is a thing. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files > ... > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- palata 1y ago
  Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of that LICENSE somewhere in their codebase?
  - rovr138 1y ago
    No, not somewhere. That’s the license. If they reuse it, they have to use that license.
    - palata 1y ago
      This is wrong. Peerd can use whatever licence they want that is compatible with the MIT licence for the code they imported from Spegel.
  - SpaceNugget 1y ago
    Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread. You: > I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one... Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to: > The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...