3 ms·
Yes and they do redistribute under MIT as well, there is no foul play here
by sublimefire 1y ago
Yes and they do redistribute under MIT as well, there is no foul play here
- Zambyte 1y agohttps://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/LICENSE I don't see "Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors" (the "above copyright notice" in https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE) anywhere. Where do you see it?
- ryao 1y agoTo be fair, Spegel changed the copyright notice in 2024. It used to say someone else. That said, Microsoft is definitely missing the notice.
- cestith 1y agoThe original author can change their own notice. Why would that be a problem?
- Zambyte 1y agoWell they could technically have proper attribution without the literal string "Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors" if they included an older copyright notice that was more appropriate. I think that was the point they were making.
- ryao 1y agoThis is correct and is roughly what I meant. My only nitpick is that I was thinking that if they forked at the time of the older notice, they would be fine to have used it, rather than a vague notion of appropriateness that probably was intended to mean the same thing, but is less precise. The hacker news post reached someone high enough up at Microsoft to have things changed. They ended placing a combined copyright notice that is a mixture of both versions into the repository to play it safe.
- ahoka 1y agoThey are essentially claiming copyright here for something they don't have the license for, no?
- debugnik 1y agoTo remove the original copyright notice, they'd need a copyright assignment (possibly implicit, as when the work is made for hire). They've already got a licence and they've infringed it by doing this.
- Zambyte 1y agoFunnily enough, they did add the copyright notice now, and since I didn't permalink to the commit, this looks a bit silly :P