7 ms·

Microsoft hasn't changed at all. Here is one recent incident I read: https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/

Microsoft hasn't changed at all. Here is one recent incident I read: https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
andrew_ 8y ago
No one should take that account as a credible source. Notorious for pot-stirring.
stordoff 8y ago
What exactly is Microsoft alleged to have done wrong here? It starts by saying "stole my code", but then discusses an MIT licensed piece of code. Furthermore, I'd see Microsoft's reply: > I'm not aware of any deliberate copying of the Lerna code, but let me dig into it now and call all the devs on the team to be sure. If there is, we should definitely give correct attribution, so I want to investigate. [...] I checked with the devs, and nobody's aware of any code coming from Lerna. If we inadvertently used something without credit, I really would like to know so that I can fix it. https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673 https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673
- pritambaral 8y ago
  > It starts by saying "stole my code", but then discusses an MIT licensed piece of code Unrelated to the rest of the discussion, I just want to clarify that MIT License != 'Do Whatever You Want' License. MIT requires attribution and maintaining the copyright license on existing code. Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    I know, which is why I wanted to clarify precisely what Microsoft is being accused of (I may have worded it poorly). The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution. "stole my code" may be strictly accurate (as if you don't follow the licence, you don't have a licence to use), but I feel like it doesn't clearly communicate the problem, especially with comments such as "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited. To be clear, I'm not saying using MIT-licensed code without attribution is acceptable, but I feel that there is a qualitative difference between this and using code you couldn't use under any circumstances, or silently incorporating MIT code in a commercial product.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution. > "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited. Attribution alone doesn't bring it into compliance. The copyright notices have to be preserved too. Also, the rewriting of commit history, if true, sounds more shady than mere "Oops, I dropped the license and copyright texts".
  - jupp0r 8y ago
    It's not stealing. I assume the original authors are still in possession of the code they wrote.
  - wtetzner 8y ago
    > Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing. Is it? Or is it copyright infringement?
Qworg 8y ago
I've seen this multiple times, and Everytime I want to know why they didn't simply diff the code - some proof is better than none, right?

Microsoft hasn't changed at all. Here is one recent incident I read: https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

andrew_ 8y ago

No one should take that account as a credible source. Notorious for pot-stirring.

stordoff 8y ago

What exactly is Microsoft alleged to have done wrong here? It starts by saying "stole my code", but then discusses an MIT licensed piece of code. Furthermore, I'd see Microsoft's reply: > I'm not aware of any deliberate copying of the Lerna code, but let me dig into it now and call all the devs on the team to be sure. If there is, we should definitely give correct attribution, so I want to investigate. [...] I checked with the devs, and nobody's aware of any code coming from Lerna. If we inadvertently used something without credit, I really would like to know so that I can fix it. https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673 https://github.com/Microsoft/web-build-tools/issues/673

pritambaral 8y ago
> It starts by saying "stole my code", but then discusses an MIT licensed piece of code Unrelated to the rest of the discussion, I just want to clarify that MIT License != 'Do Whatever You Want' License. MIT requires attribution and maintaining the copyright license on existing code. Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing.
- stordoff 8y ago
  I know, which is why I wanted to clarify precisely what Microsoft is being accused of (I may have worded it poorly). The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution. "stole my code" may be strictly accurate (as if you don't follow the licence, you don't have a licence to use), but I feel like it doesn't clearly communicate the problem, especially with comments such as "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited. To be clear, I'm not saying using MIT-licensed code without attribution is acceptable, but I feel that there is a qualitative difference between this and using code you couldn't use under any circumstances, or silently incorporating MIT code in a commercial product.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    > The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution. > "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited. Attribution alone doesn't bring it into compliance. The copyright notices have to be preserved too. Also, the rewriting of commit history, if true, sounds more shady than mere "Oops, I dropped the license and copyright texts".
- jupp0r 8y ago
  It's not stealing. I assume the original authors are still in possession of the code they wrote.
- wtetzner 8y ago
  > Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing. Is it? Or is it copyright infringement?

Qworg 8y ago

I've seen this multiple times, and Everytime I want to know why they didn't simply diff the code - some proof is better than none, right?