6 ms·

Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation. Regardless, it's not your issue to be OK with it, if the author himself is uncomfortable w

Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation. Regardless, it's not your issue to be OK with it, if the author himself is uncomfortable with it

greatgib 2y ago
It all depends if the code was copied for a big part or just snippets.
- palata 2y ago
  But it doesn't here! You are totally allowed to completely copy an MIT file, modify it and add your copyright to it! You should just keep the copyright that is already present in the file! But in the case of Spegel, I don't think that the files contain a copyright header in the first place.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    Nonsense. Copyright is implicit and assigned on creation. The git history has a clear trail showing author and contributor details. An explicit copyright notice for every file isn't needed. This is a straightforward, unquestionable license violation, and no amount of corporate FUD will change that.
    - palata 2y ago
      You're talking about copyright, I'm talking about attribution. Of course, the author keeps their copyright on the lines of code. But that's completely different from how the attribution should be done.
palata 2y ago
> Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation Except that they did not do that. They forked it (as the MIT licence permits), added an attribution to their README, and added their own header to the files with their own copyright. It's not their fault if the original author did not add a header in the first place... Or where do you see that they actually removed a copyright header from the author? None of the source files I checked in Spegel have one.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  MIT license requires attribution, not "a copyright header". It's not concerned when headers, or with sources being pristine, but with people being credited. If I release my software MIT-licenced, but don't have copyright headers, you are not free to copy files without crediting me. And no, their note in the readme is not an attribution. It's thanking them for "sharing their insights", which in no way is code attribution. Microsoft violated copyright here, bar none. There is no other reasonable interpretation.
  - palata 2y ago
    Right, they should copy the LICENCE file somewhere in their repo. Why not opening a PR, before writing a blog against Microsoft? They actually thanked the project, it doesn't feel like they were trying to steal it. Maybe they will just accept such a PR and that's all.
    - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
      Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I refuse to believe that Microsoft doesn't understand how attribution, copyright, or open source licenses work, though. I believe this is a mistake, but it's a very egregious one that showcases a lack of respect for the communities that Microsoft is exploiting. This mistake should not be possible from an entity like Microsoft.
      - palata 2y ago
        Maybe the engineers did not go through a 12 months process with their legal department and did it wrong. And with the bad publicity coming back to Microsoft, maybe those engineers will now understand that they should just avoid re-using open source projects when possible. And the next HN post will be about "BigTech reinvents the wheel in order to have control". We're all nitpicking here: they mentioned the original project in the README. Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch. Sure, they should do it right. But really, a polite, small PR fixing that would probably be a good first step.

Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation. Regardless, it's not your issue to be OK with it, if the author himself is uncomfortable with it

greatgib 2y ago

It all depends if the code was copied for a big part or just snippets.

palata 2y ago
But it doesn't here! You are totally allowed to completely copy an MIT file, modify it and add your copyright to it! You should just keep the copyright that is already present in the file! But in the case of Spegel, I don't think that the files contain a copyright header in the first place.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  Nonsense. Copyright is implicit and assigned on creation. The git history has a clear trail showing author and contributor details. An explicit copyright notice for every file isn't needed. This is a straightforward, unquestionable license violation, and no amount of corporate FUD will change that.
  - palata 2y ago
    You're talking about copyright, I'm talking about attribution. Of course, the author keeps their copyright on the lines of code. But that's completely different from how the attribution should be done.

palata 2y ago

> Blatantly copying the code without proper attribution is a violation Except that they did not do that. They forked it (as the MIT licence permits), added an attribution to their README, and added their own header to the files with their own copyright. It's not their fault if the original author did not add a header in the first place... Or where do you see that they actually removed a copyright header from the author? None of the source files I checked in Spegel have one.

MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
MIT license requires attribution, not "a copyright header". It's not concerned when headers, or with sources being pristine, but with people being credited. If I release my software MIT-licenced, but don't have copyright headers, you are not free to copy files without crediting me. And no, their note in the readme is not an attribution. It's thanking them for "sharing their insights", which in no way is code attribution. Microsoft violated copyright here, bar none. There is no other reasonable interpretation.
- palata 2y ago
  Right, they should copy the LICENCE file somewhere in their repo. Why not opening a PR, before writing a blog against Microsoft? They actually thanked the project, it doesn't feel like they were trying to steal it. Maybe they will just accept such a PR and that's all.
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I refuse to believe that Microsoft doesn't understand how attribution, copyright, or open source licenses work, though. I believe this is a mistake, but it's a very egregious one that showcases a lack of respect for the communities that Microsoft is exploiting. This mistake should not be possible from an entity like Microsoft.
    - palata 2y ago
      Maybe the engineers did not go through a 12 months process with their legal department and did it wrong. And with the bad publicity coming back to Microsoft, maybe those engineers will now understand that they should just avoid re-using open source projects when possible. And the next HN post will be about "BigTech reinvents the wheel in order to have control". We're all nitpicking here: they mentioned the original project in the README. Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch. Sure, they should do it right. But really, a polite, small PR fixing that would probably be a good first step.