4 ms·

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

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.
- optymizer 2y ago
  You can "do whatever you want with this code", but there's a catch: you have to give credit to the original author. You might not care about the credit, but lots of people care. You can't just cherrypick the things you like about a license. All of the conditions of the license apply. You're thinking about what people can do with the code, like copying, editing, and distributing. This is not it. We're talking about giving credit to the original author, as per the license.
- odo1242 2y ago
  A lot of open source software operates on the same principles of academic research. Most academic research is considered freely available, and other researchers can generally use your work as they please, so long as they cite the original author. In this context, not "citing the original author" in the copyright statement, labeling the repository as a "fork" on GitHub, clearly crediting the original author in a way that clearly describes the fact that a significant portion of their code is used in the new project isn't just a violation of the license, it's plagiarism. So in that sense it could be better potentially.
paxys 2y ago
Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.
- palata 2y ago
  Still, it's illegal for Microsoft to remove the copyright as per the licence.
- olejorgenb 2y ago
  If they had been factual I the credit I'd agree. When it's actually a fork, why not just say so. "This project is a fork (or based off) Spegel. Thanks to the authors etc" Maybe with a rationale why they forked it. You know, just common decency...
  - paxys 2y ago
    Because it's not a fork. They copied the API and like 100 lines of unit test code.
    - olejorgenb 2y ago
      Maybe not a fork, but the author writes "It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source". So they are exaggerating?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- Aperocky 2y ago
  If I owe you $100 by contract, I can't just pay you with 1 ton of steel slab delivered to your garage and argue that this is worth more and therefore you should write the debt off.

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.
optymizer 2y ago
You can "do whatever you want with this code", but there's a catch: you have to give credit to the original author. You might not care about the credit, but lots of people care. You can't just cherrypick the things you like about a license. All of the conditions of the license apply. You're thinking about what people can do with the code, like copying, editing, and distributing. This is not it. We're talking about giving credit to the original author, as per the license.
odo1242 2y ago
A lot of open source software operates on the same principles of academic research. Most academic research is considered freely available, and other researchers can generally use your work as they please, so long as they cite the original author. In this context, not "citing the original author" in the copyright statement, labeling the repository as a "fork" on GitHub, clearly crediting the original author in a way that clearly describes the fact that a significant portion of their code is used in the new project isn't just a violation of the license, it's plagiarism. So in that sense it could be better potentially.

paxys 2y ago

Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.

palata 2y ago
Still, it's illegal for Microsoft to remove the copyright as per the licence.
olejorgenb 2y ago
If they had been factual I the credit I'd agree. When it's actually a fork, why not just say so. "This project is a fork (or based off) Spegel. Thanks to the authors etc" Maybe with a rationale why they forked it. You know, just common decency...
- paxys 2y ago
  Because it's not a fork. They copied the API and like 100 lines of unit test code.
  - olejorgenb 2y ago
    Maybe not a fork, but the author writes "It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source". So they are exaggerating?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
Aperocky 2y ago
If I owe you $100 by contract, I can't just pay you with 1 ton of steel slab delivered to your garage and argue that this is worth more and therefore you should write the debt off.