3 ms·

Because Microsoft is incapable of doing both. They will keep taking more than they give back. I'd rather have someone keep $500 than give it to me so they can g

Because Microsoft is incapable of doing both. They will keep taking more than they give back. I'd rather have someone keep $500 than give it to me so they can go around and brag about it and then later find out they've been using my stuff without my permission because they felt like I owed it to them.

rglullis 4y ago
If your work is FOSS, they don't "owe" you anything, just like you don't owe anything to them if they decide to support you. And, yes, $500k is relatively nothing for them. But I don't see how "relatively" nothing is better than actually nothing.
- fnord123 4y ago
  The context of reselling code is copilot which is of questionable legality. They owe you a copyright header when distributing your BSD or MIT licensed code. They owe you adhering to the GPL license when distributing your GPL licensed code.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    That is a separate issue, and unless they think that money would be enough to settle any license violations, it has nothing to do with donating some cash to maintainers.
    - fnord123 4y ago
      It's not a separate issue. It's the issue GP was referring to.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    That is exactly what I was referring to. I wonder if some people are just unfamiliar with copilot licensing issues or they don't see how that is an issue.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Of course the Copilot thing is problematic and they should not let be off the hook for it, but Copilot is not even referenced in the blog post. My read is that they are giving the money to projects they use to develop GitHub itself. And if this has nothing to do with the Copilot issue, why bring it to the conversation?
jrochkind1 4y ago
Why are you contributing to open source projects if you don't want people to be able to use your contributions without your permission? You seem to be making a mistake.

3 ms·

Because Microsoft is incapable of doing both. They will keep taking more than they give back. I'd rather have someone keep $500 than give it to me so they can g

by encryptluks2 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago
If your work is FOSS, they don't "owe" you anything, just like you don't owe anything to them if they decide to support you. And, yes, $500k is relatively nothing for them. But I don't see how "relatively" nothing is better than actually nothing.
- fnord123 4y ago
  The context of reselling code is copilot which is of questionable legality. They owe you a copyright header when distributing your BSD or MIT licensed code. They owe you adhering to the GPL license when distributing your GPL licensed code.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    That is a separate issue, and unless they think that money would be enough to settle any license violations, it has nothing to do with donating some cash to maintainers.
    - fnord123 4y ago
      It's not a separate issue. It's the issue GP was referring to.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    That is exactly what I was referring to. I wonder if some people are just unfamiliar with copilot licensing issues or they don't see how that is an issue.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Of course the Copilot thing is problematic and they should not let be off the hook for it, but Copilot is not even referenced in the blog post. My read is that they are giving the money to projects they use to develop GitHub itself. And if this has nothing to do with the Copilot issue, why bring it to the conversation?
jrochkind1 4y ago
Why are you contributing to open source projects if you don't want people to be able to use your contributions without your permission? You seem to be making a mistake.