4 ms·

> licensing it so that they couldn’t even look at it https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm/blob/main/LICE

> licensing it so that they couldn’t even look at it https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm/blob/main/LICENSE It’s just GPL 2.0, what are you talking about!? Are Microsoft employees vampires that will burn up instantly if they merely glance at GPL code or something? This is sour grapes nonsense from Microsoft. “We don’t like your tone so we won’t even dignify your argument by considering it.” At one point an MS employee said they would love to fix their code as suggested by Casey but he refused to even look at the YouTube video! “I would love to hear your arguments but I refuse to listen to the sound of your voice.” is next-level dismissive.

Ygg2 4y ago
> Are Microsoft employees vampires that will burn up instantly if they merely glance at GPL code or something? More like will legal drain life from developers if they hear they looked at GPL code. We had to switch DB drivers because legal didn't want to deal with GPL. Imagine writing code based on it...
naikrovek 4y ago
> just GPL 2.0 perhaps you are not familiar with what the GPL requires of its users, and how wildly incompatible that is with what a company like Microsoft does. Microsoft employees are forbidden from looking at GPL code (as well as other virally licensed code) because they may unwittingly reproduce some GPL code they saw in a large Microsoft codebase. If that happens, and they are taken to trial over it, and lose, that entire codebase is now GPL. This is enough of a risk to them that MS employees have computers which simply can not view GPL code. that is also why they would not watch the video; it isn’t about his voice, it is about the code visible on stream. additionally, watching a video of GPL code being written could be perceived as an attempt to circumvent the restrictions on viewing GPL code, and would likely get the viewer into trouble. you not already knowing this bothers me a lot, given all the things you’ve said in this discussion. you are making a lot of assumptions that are just not true and basing your opinions on the belief that those assumptions are true. this is very similar to why software at microsoft is as bad as it is generally; a lot of people assuming they know things they don’t know, and producing results which are more flawed than they needed to be.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  IF THEY COPY IT VERBATIM. They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. They'd have to anyway to fit in with their codebase.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    Uh, no. You cannot e.g. listen to a Radiohead song and "look at the approach and simply rewrite it" for instance if you want to be entirely clear of copyright liability - same applies for software.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      No, otherwise authors of books would be suing everyone who read them and learned their ideas.
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      Of course you can. That's what a huge chunk of art ever created does. You're only (potentially) in trouble when you make it obvious.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Isn't copyright about copying verbatim (or with trivial enough changes that it remains recognizably the same) large enough sections of the protected work?
      - jcelerier 4y ago
        At least not in my country (France). At the very least changing the pitch, and rhythm and interpretation of a melody is not enough to make it an original work there. To give a very concrete example: french singer Claude François made the song Comme d'habitude: https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg It was translated and rewritten a few times but he still is recognized as one of the copyright owners on those covers, e.g. https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg which are definitely not just a mechanical rewrite of the original score

Ygg2 4y ago

> Are Microsoft employees vampires that will burn up instantly if they merely glance at GPL code or something? More like will legal drain life from developers if they hear they looked at GPL code. We had to switch DB drivers because legal didn't want to deal with GPL. Imagine writing code based on it...

naikrovek 4y ago

> just GPL 2.0 perhaps you are not familiar with what the GPL requires of its users, and how wildly incompatible that is with what a company like Microsoft does. Microsoft employees are forbidden from looking at GPL code (as well as other virally licensed code) because they may unwittingly reproduce some GPL code they saw in a large Microsoft codebase. If that happens, and they are taken to trial over it, and lose, that entire codebase is now GPL. This is enough of a risk to them that MS employees have computers which simply can not view GPL code. that is also why they would not watch the video; it isn’t about his voice, it is about the code visible on stream. additionally, watching a video of GPL code being written could be perceived as an attempt to circumvent the restrictions on viewing GPL code, and would likely get the viewer into trouble. you not already knowing this bothers me a lot, given all the things you’ve said in this discussion. you are making a lot of assumptions that are just not true and basing your opinions on the belief that those assumptions are true. this is very similar to why software at microsoft is as bad as it is generally; a lot of people assuming they know things they don’t know, and producing results which are more flawed than they needed to be.

jiggawatts 4y ago
IF THEY COPY IT VERBATIM. They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. They'd have to anyway to fit in with their codebase.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  Uh, no. You cannot e.g. listen to a Radiohead song and "look at the approach and simply rewrite it" for instance if you want to be entirely clear of copyright liability - same applies for software.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    No, otherwise authors of books would be suing everyone who read them and learned their ideas.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    Of course you can. That's what a huge chunk of art ever created does. You're only (potentially) in trouble when you make it obvious.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Isn't copyright about copying verbatim (or with trivial enough changes that it remains recognizably the same) large enough sections of the protected work?
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      At least not in my country (France). At the very least changing the pitch, and rhythm and interpretation of a melody is not enough to make it an original work there. To give a very concrete example: french singer Claude François made the song Comme d'habitude: https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg It was translated and rewritten a few times but he still is recognized as one of the copyright owners on those covers, e.g. https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg which are definitely not just a mechanical rewrite of the original score