5 ms·

You are supposed to keep the original license for a fork. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantia

You are supposed to keep the original license for a fork. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license.

WD-42 2y ago
It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. They do reference the project in the repo. The real question is why did the author choose MIT if they didn’t want allow mega corps to benefit from their work without contributing back. That’s a feature of the license, not a bug.
- kazinator 2y ago
  It is literally the only violation that the license is concerned with therefore it is major!!! MIT and BSD type licenses say you can do almost anything you want, but just don't plagiarize, because that would be intellectual misconduct. In addition to not just removing the copyright notice from sources, the MIT license requires the copyright notice to be present in all derived works. It makes no mention that if you compile a program, the binaries don't have to have copyright notices.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- evantbyrne 2y ago
  Attribution is an important aspect of open source culture. It is the only thing that most authors get out of the deal.
- NobodyNada 2y ago
  It's not a "pretty minor violation", that's the only condition of the MIT license. Yes, they mentioned Spegel, but only to thank the authors for "generously sharing their insights" -- that's not even close to the required statement that part of the project is owned and copyrighted by the authors of Spegel.
  - WD-42 2y ago
    Ok, so MS will see this thread and re-add the missing header to a few files. You really think the author is going to then feel 100% better about it? They are just another data point in the long list of authors who chose a permissive license and are then shocked when a billion dollar company takes advantage of it.
    - RIMR 2y ago
      I mean, the author understands the MIT license, and is upset that the terms of that license aren't being honored. If I were them, I would absolutely feel better getting credit where credit is due. If they wanted a less permissive license, they could have used one.
      - WD-42 2y ago
        Did you read the article? The missing attribution is a tiny part of it. That’s not really what the author is complaining about.
        istjohn 2y ago
        > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        hiatus 2y ago
        That seems to be exactly the thing they are complaining about: > Spegel was published with an MIT license. Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive. The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source. Can you share what you think the author is really complaining about?
- kergonath 2y ago
  > It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. Quite the contrary. The licence does not have many constraints, but this one is important. Volunteer developers let their code being used in closed source commercial programs. Recognition is the only thing they expect and the whole point of the licence.
  - thwarted 2y ago
    "There won't be any money, but we won't properly credit you and you'll won't even get any exposure". Not even offering exposure anymore.
    - Graphon1 2y ago
      There won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive _total consciousness_. --Carl Spackler, quoting the Dalai Lama
- palata 2y ago
  People here keep saying that they removed copyright headers. I can't find a single copyright header in the Spegel source files. Can someone help me find which headers Microsoft actually removed? What I see is that Microsoft added headers to their Peerd files. Now they read "Copyright Microsoft", which is correct because Microsoft owns some copyright over those modified files. If those files had had a "Copyright Spegel project" before, Microsoft should have kept it and added their own. But those files did not contain such a header as far as I can see.
  - ptx 2y ago
    It's in the license file: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commits/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commits/main/LICENSE
    - palata 2y ago
      Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of this LICENSE file somewhere? Can't we just open a PR to add it to the repo? Did the author do that and did Microsoft decline the PR? Feels like Microsoft was not necessarily trying to steal work (they link the original project in their README).
      - Conan_Kudo 2y ago
        It needs to be present in the headers of each file that they took from. Attribution matters and in mixed projects you need that clarification at the file level.
        palata 2y ago
        Does the MIT licence text say that? I don't understand it like this. I understand that a copy of the licence should be preserved, not that the licence should be copied into source files.
        aksss 2y ago
        I think the fork needs to preserve the LICENSE file in the repo and in distributed code (e.g. packages), right? But not replicated as a file header in every blessed file in the repo.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  uh, no! Microsoft got tremendous value for free by forking. Which makes the obligation to deal ethically and honestly very serious. You don’t get to take something from anyone without meeting the terms they have set for you to take them. That is theft. (For clarity, I am saying theft of a right. As it does negatively impact the original creator, in terms of competition and lost attribution to the code they wrote, and Microsoft is not paying the “fee” that taking that right depends on.) And no third person can can ethically speak for the source of the value and state that it’s no big deal for another party to break some part of a contract/license. How do you know how much this aspect of the license impacted the original creators decision to share their work, their choice of license, or how they feel and and practically impacted about it now! In this case, we know they clearly feel the violation was harmful to them at some level. They were snubbed, their work left unacknowledged, while Microsoft leached off them, even though doing the right thing would cost Microsoft essentially nothing. Please don’t socially absolve the powerful from bad behavior toward smaller parties. That’s bad faith, after the fact, and you are not even benefiting from your own disrespect for the license. Always support the (credibly) injured party. As for offenses against you, you have every right to be generous and overlook those. (I once took a year sabbatical to work collaboratively on a project, with the presumed (based on what was a clear discussion to me) attributions being a key factor in me deciding it was worth the time and effort, when other factors made that a difficult decision. Only to have my attribution expectations unfulfilled, and no attempt was made by other parties to work things out. The situation was fraught enough that I couldn’t but help feel bitter about it for some time. I am long over it, but I would certainly take the year back if I could.)
- reaperducer 2y ago
  It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. Why "to be fair?" This is a trillion-dollar company with enough lawyers on staff to populate a small city. Why are we cutting Microsoft slack? If anything, it should be held to the highest of standards.
- didgetmaster 2y ago
  The author talks about changing his licensing as the only stone he can throw. As I understand it, changing the licensing will do nothing to affect the fork Microsoft already made. It might affect the next megacorp from doing the same thing in the future, but Microsoft can keep working on their fork without giving it a second thought. This is for sure a cautionary tale for every open source contributor. Choose the original open source license very carefully. Edit: Might I suggest that when picking the original license, you try to imagine how you might feel if the company that you hate the most (could be Microsoft, Google, Amazon, or other) does the most extreme thing allowed by the license.
  - 3np 2y ago
    It would prevent MS from backporting new changes.
    - didgetmaster 2y ago
      They might not be able to copy new code, but you can't stop them from fixing bugs that you also fixed, or adding similar new features as you (using code they wrote after carefully examining what you did).
palata 2y ago
> Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license. Did they remove the copyright? All the source files I checked in Spegel don't have a copyright header. To me it feels like it's the author's mistake.
- evantbyrne 2y ago
  Forks don't get to pretend that licenses don't exist just because they don't like the placement in the source.
  - palata 2y ago
    You don't understand my point (probably my mistake). If the file starts with: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne Then a fork should read: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne // Copyright Microsoft But if you did not add "// Copyright evantbyrne", the MIT license doesn't say that Microsoft should add it. I don't even know if it's legal for Microsoft to do it. You have to add your own copyright to the files where you own a copyright.
    - evantbyrne 2y ago
      I understood and this is incorrect. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. It needs to appear somewhere regardless of where exactly the license was placed in the source repository.
      - palata 2y ago
        Right. So they should just copy this licence somewhere in a subfolder, saying "parts of this project derive from Spegel, with licence: <copy of the licence>"? They can still do it now, and probably they should (someone can even open a PR?).
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
pstoll 2y ago
The other thing is that Microsoft does not own the copyright for any of the code they used. Facing their work on code they don’t own the copyright to is incredibly messy from an IP point of view. It’s why con contributor licenses agreements exist in most open source popular projects.

WD-42 2y ago

It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. They do reference the project in the repo. The real question is why did the author choose MIT if they didn’t want allow mega corps to benefit from their work without contributing back. That’s a feature of the license, not a bug.

kazinator 2y ago
It is literally the only violation that the license is concerned with therefore it is major!!! MIT and BSD type licenses say you can do almost anything you want, but just don't plagiarize, because that would be intellectual misconduct. In addition to not just removing the copyright notice from sources, the MIT license requires the copyright notice to be present in all derived works. It makes no mention that if you compile a program, the binaries don't have to have copyright notices.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
evantbyrne 2y ago
Attribution is an important aspect of open source culture. It is the only thing that most authors get out of the deal.
NobodyNada 2y ago
It's not a "pretty minor violation", that's the only condition of the MIT license. Yes, they mentioned Spegel, but only to thank the authors for "generously sharing their insights" -- that's not even close to the required statement that part of the project is owned and copyrighted by the authors of Spegel.
- WD-42 2y ago
  Ok, so MS will see this thread and re-add the missing header to a few files. You really think the author is going to then feel 100% better about it? They are just another data point in the long list of authors who chose a permissive license and are then shocked when a billion dollar company takes advantage of it.
  - RIMR 2y ago
    I mean, the author understands the MIT license, and is upset that the terms of that license aren't being honored. If I were them, I would absolutely feel better getting credit where credit is due. If they wanted a less permissive license, they could have used one.
    - WD-42 2y ago
      Did you read the article? The missing attribution is a tiny part of it. That’s not really what the author is complaining about.
      - istjohn 2y ago
        > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - hiatus 2y ago
        That seems to be exactly the thing they are complaining about: > Spegel was published with an MIT license. Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive. The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source. Can you share what you think the author is really complaining about?
kergonath 2y ago
> It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. Quite the contrary. The licence does not have many constraints, but this one is important. Volunteer developers let their code being used in closed source commercial programs. Recognition is the only thing they expect and the whole point of the licence.
- thwarted 2y ago
  "There won't be any money, but we won't properly credit you and you'll won't even get any exposure". Not even offering exposure anymore.
  - Graphon1 2y ago
    There won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive _total consciousness_. --Carl Spackler, quoting the Dalai Lama
palata 2y ago
People here keep saying that they removed copyright headers. I can't find a single copyright header in the Spegel source files. Can someone help me find which headers Microsoft actually removed? What I see is that Microsoft added headers to their Peerd files. Now they read "Copyright Microsoft", which is correct because Microsoft owns some copyright over those modified files. If those files had had a "Copyright Spegel project" before, Microsoft should have kept it and added their own. But those files did not contain such a header as far as I can see.
- ptx 2y ago
  It's in the license file: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commits/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commits/main/LICENSE
  - palata 2y ago
    Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of this LICENSE file somewhere? Can't we just open a PR to add it to the repo? Did the author do that and did Microsoft decline the PR? Feels like Microsoft was not necessarily trying to steal work (they link the original project in their README).
    - Conan_Kudo 2y ago
      It needs to be present in the headers of each file that they took from. Attribution matters and in mixed projects you need that clarification at the file level.
      - palata 2y ago
        Does the MIT licence text say that? I don't understand it like this. I understand that a copy of the licence should be preserved, not that the licence should be copied into source files.
      - aksss 2y ago
        I think the fork needs to preserve the LICENSE file in the repo and in distributed code (e.g. packages), right? But not replicated as a file header in every blessed file in the repo.
Nevermark 2y ago
uh, no! Microsoft got tremendous value for free by forking. Which makes the obligation to deal ethically and honestly very serious. You don’t get to take something from anyone without meeting the terms they have set for you to take them. That is theft. (For clarity, I am saying theft of a right. As it does negatively impact the original creator, in terms of competition and lost attribution to the code they wrote, and Microsoft is not paying the “fee” that taking that right depends on.) And no third person can can ethically speak for the source of the value and state that it’s no big deal for another party to break some part of a contract/license. How do you know how much this aspect of the license impacted the original creators decision to share their work, their choice of license, or how they feel and and practically impacted about it now! In this case, we know they clearly feel the violation was harmful to them at some level. They were snubbed, their work left unacknowledged, while Microsoft leached off them, even though doing the right thing would cost Microsoft essentially nothing. Please don’t socially absolve the powerful from bad behavior toward smaller parties. That’s bad faith, after the fact, and you are not even benefiting from your own disrespect for the license. Always support the (credibly) injured party. As for offenses against you, you have every right to be generous and overlook those. (I once took a year sabbatical to work collaboratively on a project, with the presumed (based on what was a clear discussion to me) attributions being a key factor in me deciding it was worth the time and effort, when other factors made that a difficult decision. Only to have my attribution expectations unfulfilled, and no attempt was made by other parties to work things out. The situation was fraught enough that I couldn’t but help feel bitter about it for some time. I am long over it, but I would certainly take the year back if I could.)
reaperducer 2y ago
It seems like a pretty minor violation, to be fair. Why "to be fair?" This is a trillion-dollar company with enough lawyers on staff to populate a small city. Why are we cutting Microsoft slack? If anything, it should be held to the highest of standards.
didgetmaster 2y ago
The author talks about changing his licensing as the only stone he can throw. As I understand it, changing the licensing will do nothing to affect the fork Microsoft already made. It might affect the next megacorp from doing the same thing in the future, but Microsoft can keep working on their fork without giving it a second thought. This is for sure a cautionary tale for every open source contributor. Choose the original open source license very carefully. Edit: Might I suggest that when picking the original license, you try to imagine how you might feel if the company that you hate the most (could be Microsoft, Google, Amazon, or other) does the most extreme thing allowed by the license.
- 3np 2y ago
  It would prevent MS from backporting new changes.
  - didgetmaster 2y ago
    They might not be able to copy new code, but you can't stop them from fixing bugs that you also fixed, or adding similar new features as you (using code they wrote after carefully examining what you did).

palata 2y ago

> Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license. Did they remove the copyright? All the source files I checked in Spegel don't have a copyright header. To me it feels like it's the author's mistake.

evantbyrne 2y ago
Forks don't get to pretend that licenses don't exist just because they don't like the placement in the source.
- palata 2y ago
  You don't understand my point (probably my mistake). If the file starts with: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne Then a fork should read: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne // Copyright Microsoft But if you did not add "// Copyright evantbyrne", the MIT license doesn't say that Microsoft should add it. I don't even know if it's legal for Microsoft to do it. You have to add your own copyright to the files where you own a copyright.
  - evantbyrne 2y ago
    I understood and this is incorrect. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. It needs to appear somewhere regardless of where exactly the license was placed in the source repository.
    - palata 2y ago
      Right. So they should just copy this licence somewhere in a subfolder, saying "parts of this project derive from Spegel, with licence: <copy of the licence>"? They can still do it now, and probably they should (someone can even open a PR?).
      - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago

pstoll 2y ago

The other thing is that Microsoft does not own the copyright for any of the code they used. Facing their work on code they don’t own the copyright to is incredibly messy from an IP point of view. It’s why con contributor licenses agreements exist in most open source popular projects.