6 ms·

Ok, but this is still illegal, right?

judge2020 5y ago
Since MIT has this line: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud if MS reverses the change and/or simply appends the original MIT license above their MIT license (since MS does indeed have '5 commits ahead' of the origin repo, all of those changes are copyright MS but still MIT licensed). They could even simply have a file called 'LICENSE2' with the original notice, if they can't easily exclude this repo from the bot.
- 0x0 5y ago
  The "5 commits ahead" are literally only replacing the license and the readmes.
  - pitched 5y ago
    So the only part of the repo that is legitimately copyrighted by Microsoft is the Microsoft copyright notice? I love how meta this is.
- matt123456789 5y ago
  I see. Thank you for the explanation.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud Given that this change was committed to the main branch, if I download the code right now, haven't Microsoft redistributed it?
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid. If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does that count as redistribution?
    - sicromoft 5y ago
      [deleted]
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        No. If you hack into my company and siphon out an EXE for an internal tool that uses GPL licensed code, you are not entitled to the source code of the package because the company did not “distribute” it to you; you took it without any right to have it. There’s a whole philosophical debate we can have where we quibble over the definitions of words as they deal with technology, but the (US) courts generally don’t care about technicalities. An analogy is stolen property. If you purchase something that is stolen property, you have (almost) no legal right to it; the courts will often order its seizure for return to the original owner. By “hacking” (according to the CFAA), you “stole” the EXE.
        NeutronStar 5y ago
    - erinnh 5y ago
      I would say that it isnt, because you had no intent to redistribute it. But you cant make that argument here, as its a public repo, as such Microsoft did have the intent to redistribute.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - joshmanders 5y ago
hnfong 5y ago
Yes, people make mistakes. Sometimes, mistakes turn out to be illegal. But if you're one of the largest corporations in USA, the law tends to go easy on you for making accidental mistakes.

judge2020 5y ago

Since MIT has this line: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud if MS reverses the change and/or simply appends the original MIT license above their MIT license (since MS does indeed have '5 commits ahead' of the origin repo, all of those changes are copyright MS but still MIT licensed). They could even simply have a file called 'LICENSE2' with the original notice, if they can't easily exclude this repo from the bot.

0x0 5y ago
The "5 commits ahead" are literally only replacing the license and the readmes.
- pitched 5y ago
  So the only part of the repo that is legitimately copyrighted by Microsoft is the Microsoft copyright notice? I love how meta this is.
matt123456789 5y ago
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
webmaven 5y ago
> MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud Given that this change was committed to the main branch, if I download the code right now, haven't Microsoft redistributed it?
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid. If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does that count as redistribution?
  - sicromoft 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      No. If you hack into my company and siphon out an EXE for an internal tool that uses GPL licensed code, you are not entitled to the source code of the package because the company did not “distribute” it to you; you took it without any right to have it. There’s a whole philosophical debate we can have where we quibble over the definitions of words as they deal with technology, but the (US) courts generally don’t care about technicalities. An analogy is stolen property. If you purchase something that is stolen property, you have (almost) no legal right to it; the courts will often order its seizure for return to the original owner. By “hacking” (according to the CFAA), you “stole” the EXE.
      - NeutronStar 5y ago
  - erinnh 5y ago
    I would say that it isnt, because you had no intent to redistribute it. But you cant make that argument here, as its a public repo, as such Microsoft did have the intent to redistribute.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - joshmanders 5y ago

hnfong 5y ago

Yes, people make mistakes. Sometimes, mistakes turn out to be illegal. But if you're one of the largest corporations in USA, the law tends to go easy on you for making accidental mistakes.