3 ms·

I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many

I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of the project in accordance with the license. If you don’t want that sort of appropriation then you need to pick a license that doesn’t allow it.

ghostly_s 2y ago
Yeah, as far as I can gather the only thing MS did wrong here is not explicitly crediting the project they forked the code from, and I don't get the impression the author would find adding that one sentence to the docs to be adequate redress. I don't get why you would take personal offense at a big company forking your code so they can mold it to their purposes - the license allows that. Now whether that's the right way for a "friend of the OSS community" to behave is a different question entirely, but anyone who ever bought that horseshit from them has had their head in the sand.
- jen20 2y ago
  Using code per the terms of the license is one thing. Stealing it it another, and that is what Microsoft appear to have done.
layer8 2y ago
In the present case of Spegel, it wasn't in accordance with the license, because the fork removed the attribution.
- wat10000 2y ago
  I get that, but it doesn’t really seem to be what the author is complaining about.
jenadine 2y ago
Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors To replace it by their own. Despite the license says > The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool? To me, licenses like MIT or BSD pretty much imply "do whatever you want with this" I know it's not exactly that but if you really care to keep some control over what others do with the code, you need a more restrictive license (and even then people are still going to copy it, especially in the LLM era).
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool? It certainly would be better. Forks tend not to have -perfect- relationships and tend to cause a bit of mutual annoyance. But attribution is important-- it's the most basic step. When this maintainer is asked how the projects are related, it'd sure be nice if both projects are telling the same story, instead of one illegally lying about it.
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    Well, it’s the difference between plagiarism and attribution. If your goal isn’t money but a bare minimum recognition for what was your work vs someone else taking credit for it, yes it’s enough.
  - vvillena 2y ago
    Yes, it would be cool, and it's the usual way to do these things. You can license code under a more restrictive license, and clarify licensing by adding an extra section to the main license, adding the license to a subdirectory, or adding license headers to the individual files. Whether the MIT license is the right one to choose is probably a different debate.
  - 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Because the “payment” that you get for its permissive use is the attribution (which can be personal gratification or it can professionally boost your profile/opportunities). MSFT robbed them of that.
Salgat 2y ago
Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements, this is my same approach with using the MIT license. I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. That's why in this case, I'd reach out to Microsoft to fix that issue, and nothing more.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then.
  - joshuaissac 2y ago
    > Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then. The MIT licence already requires attribution, and that is what the author picked.
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      The person I was responding to began with "Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements", and it is clear in his comment that he's not referring to the OP's issue, but the issue in general. In other words, he's saying that even if it had been some other license, he wants attribution. That's silly. If you want attribution, say it up front (which could simply mean picking the MIT license).
- Xelynega 2y ago
  > I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. I have the same reasoning as to why I pick the AGPLv3 license as the default for my new projects. I want any benefits from my code to continue to benefit everyone, even if someone is profiting off of it.

ghostly_s 2y ago

Yeah, as far as I can gather the only thing MS did wrong here is not explicitly crediting the project they forked the code from, and I don't get the impression the author would find adding that one sentence to the docs to be adequate redress. I don't get why you would take personal offense at a big company forking your code so they can mold it to their purposes - the license allows that. Now whether that's the right way for a "friend of the OSS community" to behave is a different question entirely, but anyone who ever bought that horseshit from them has had their head in the sand.

jen20 2y ago
Using code per the terms of the license is one thing. Stealing it it another, and that is what Microsoft appear to have done.

layer8 2y ago

In the present case of Spegel, it wasn't in accordance with the license, because the fork removed the attribution.

wat10000 2y ago
I get that, but it doesn’t really seem to be what the author is complaining about.

jenadine 2y ago

Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors To replace it by their own. Despite the license says > The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

SoftTalker 2y ago
So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool? To me, licenses like MIT or BSD pretty much imply "do whatever you want with this" I know it's not exactly that but if you really care to keep some control over what others do with the code, you need a more restrictive license (and even then people are still going to copy it, especially in the LLM era).
- mlyle 2y ago
  > So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool? It certainly would be better. Forks tend not to have -perfect- relationships and tend to cause a bit of mutual annoyance. But attribution is important-- it's the most basic step. When this maintainer is asked how the projects are related, it'd sure be nice if both projects are telling the same story, instead of one illegally lying about it.
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  Well, it’s the difference between plagiarism and attribution. If your goal isn’t money but a bare minimum recognition for what was your work vs someone else taking credit for it, yes it’s enough.
- vvillena 2y ago
  Yes, it would be cool, and it's the usual way to do these things. You can license code under a more restrictive license, and clarify licensing by adding an extra section to the main license, adding the license to a subdirectory, or adding license headers to the individual files. Whether the MIT license is the right one to choose is probably a different debate.
- 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Because the “payment” that you get for its permissive use is the attribution (which can be personal gratification or it can professionally boost your profile/opportunities). MSFT robbed them of that.

Salgat 2y ago

Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements, this is my same approach with using the MIT license. I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. That's why in this case, I'd reach out to Microsoft to fix that issue, and nothing more.

BeetleB 2y ago
> The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then.
- joshuaissac 2y ago
  > Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then. The MIT licence already requires attribution, and that is what the author picked.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    The person I was responding to began with "Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements", and it is clear in his comment that he's not referring to the OP's issue, but the issue in general. In other words, he's saying that even if it had been some other license, he wants attribution. That's silly. If you want attribution, say it up front (which could simply mean picking the MIT license).
Xelynega 2y ago
> I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. I have the same reasoning as to why I pick the AGPLv3 license as the default for my new projects. I want any benefits from my code to continue to benefit everyone, even if someone is profiting off of it.