4 ms·
I was talking not only about this specific instance of it happening, but Microsoft had similar mistakes throughout the past 6 months. Here's the one from CUPS,
by fxtentacle 5y ago
I was talking not only about this specific instance of it happening, but Microsoft had similar mistakes throughout the past 6 months. Here's the one from CUPS, a Linux printing library:
https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/ad69bcc78bdea3fea3f09fe56674daea821bb407 https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/ad69bcc78bdea3fea3f...
It used to be Apache License, then it became "MIT License (c) Microsoft Corporation". Thanks to the attention that this thread got, it has now been fixed:
https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/3859d70160010c61fd7a05ecbf23f3b4738e2b9d https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/3859d70160010c61fd7...
But that source code was online with the wrong license for more than 6 months. Imagine if you had hosted Windows source code with a misattributed MIT license for 6 months... They would also bring out the pitchforks ;) Or even worse: well-paid lawyers.
- tptacek 5y agoI asked what Microsoft had to gain from altering an MIT license. You're answering a different question. But, fine, I'll bite: tell me how Microsoft stood to make a nickel by modifying an Apache license.