3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
      - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        You don't need a 12 month process with a legal department to not take code without giving credit. This is not untrodden ground. > they mentioned the original project in the README They thank them for their "generous insights". That's not the same thing. If I take chapters unmodified from Harry Potter and thank Rowling for her "generous insight", that's still not okay. > Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch. Nobody said it was. It does, however, copy functions and other entire blocks of code with comments directly from Spegel without giving attribution. That is wrong. That is plagiarism.
        palata 2y ago
        > You don't need a 12 month process with a legal department to not take code without giving credit. This is not untrodden ground. Well, I have been in big companies where it takes a lot of time for the legal department to check those things. Not because it's fundamentally hard, but because the queue of things they have to do is pretty big. > They thank them for their "generous insights". That's not the same thing. Sure, it's wrong. But it's not "purposely stealing without giving any credit at all" either. It feels like an engineer did that, tried to give credit and did it wrong. And now we go on and on saying how this engineer is evil.
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
ygjb 2y ago
Your argument is fairly asinine. When you fork an open source project under the MIT license you have an obligation to include the original license in all copies or substantial copies of the code. The author of the fork may also sublicense, which allows them to add new terms to the license, but not remove the original license. Forking and/or copying files from the Spegel code base into the Peerd code base is permitted, but since the Spegel code base had a single license file covering the entire repo, then the onus is on Microsofts engineers to update the code they copied and include the original license terms, for example, by including something like: // Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. // Licensed under the MIT License. // Some code Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors, under MIT license If your argument is that they aren't required to do this because the original code didn't have a license header in the file, then it would follow that you are arguing that the MIT license doesn't apply to the code that was copied, in which case Microsoft is using unlicensed code stolen from an open source project. While I haven't worked at MS specifically, I would assume that like every other tech company I have worked at, they have a team or working group that specializes in adherence to open source licenses specifically to avoid both the legal implications and the bad PR implications of misusing open source software.
- palata 2y ago
  Do they have to copy the licence in every single file, or do they have to copy the licence somewhere in their fork?
  - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
    The details are less important. The code that is copied needs to be attributed, either with comments, or a license file that states which files came from the project, or something else, but the specific code does need to be recognizable by a reader as coming from that other source. Comments and copyright headers are the easiest way to do this.
    - palata 2y ago
      Still, to me it's not even clear if "substantial parts of the code" were copied. What the article shows is really small snippets of pretty generic code. Ok, it keeps the original comment and the overall form. But if it's 15 lines, it may even count as "fair use", couldn't it? Remembering how LLMs use the concept of "fair-use" by stealing everything everywhere... My point is that Peerd seems like it's loosely based on Spegel. Maybe a fork that was heavily modified. Not sure if they should track all the code that looks like it was not modified enough and attribute it everywhere. Probably they should keep a copy of the original LICENSE file somewhere, sure. And if one asks politely, maybe they will do it. Again: they did credit the original project. So it feels a bit aggressive to say that they "stole it without giving any credit".

by palata 2y ago

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.
    - MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
      You don't need a 12 month process with a legal department to not take code without giving credit. This is not untrodden ground. > they mentioned the original project in the README They thank them for their "generous insights". That's not the same thing. If I take chapters unmodified from Harry Potter and thank Rowling for her "generous insight", that's still not okay. > Peerd is quite different from Spegel, it's not just a copy with a small patch. Nobody said it was. It does, however, copy functions and other entire blocks of code with comments directly from Spegel without giving attribution. That is wrong. That is plagiarism.
      - palata 2y ago
        > You don't need a 12 month process with a legal department to not take code without giving credit. This is not untrodden ground. Well, I have been in big companies where it takes a lot of time for the legal department to check those things. Not because it's fundamentally hard, but because the queue of things they have to do is pretty big. > They thank them for their "generous insights". That's not the same thing. Sure, it's wrong. But it's not "purposely stealing without giving any credit at all" either. It feels like an engineer did that, tried to give credit and did it wrong. And now we go on and on saying how this engineer is evil.
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago

ygjb 2y ago

Your argument is fairly asinine. When you fork an open source project under the MIT license you have an obligation to include the original license in all copies or substantial copies of the code. The author of the fork may also sublicense, which allows them to add new terms to the license, but not remove the original license. Forking and/or copying files from the Spegel code base into the Peerd code base is permitted, but since the Spegel code base had a single license file covering the entire repo, then the onus is on Microsofts engineers to update the code they copied and include the original license terms, for example, by including something like: // Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. // Licensed under the MIT License. // Some code Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors, under MIT license If your argument is that they aren't required to do this because the original code didn't have a license header in the file, then it would follow that you are arguing that the MIT license doesn't apply to the code that was copied, in which case Microsoft is using unlicensed code stolen from an open source project. While I haven't worked at MS specifically, I would assume that like every other tech company I have worked at, they have a team or working group that specializes in adherence to open source licenses specifically to avoid both the legal implications and the bad PR implications of misusing open source software.

palata 2y ago
Do they have to copy the licence in every single file, or do they have to copy the licence somewhere in their fork?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  The details are less important. The code that is copied needs to be attributed, either with comments, or a license file that states which files came from the project, or something else, but the specific code does need to be recognizable by a reader as coming from that other source. Comments and copyright headers are the easiest way to do this.
  - palata 2y ago
    Still, to me it's not even clear if "substantial parts of the code" were copied. What the article shows is really small snippets of pretty generic code. Ok, it keeps the original comment and the overall form. But if it's 15 lines, it may even count as "fair use", couldn't it? Remembering how LLMs use the concept of "fair-use" by stealing everything everywhere... My point is that Peerd seems like it's loosely based on Spegel. Maybe a fork that was heavily modified. Not sure if they should track all the code that looks like it was not modified enough and attribute it everywhere. Probably they should keep a copy of the original LICENSE file somewhere, sure. And if one asks politely, maybe they will do it. Again: they did credit the original project. So it feels a bit aggressive to say that they "stole it without giving any credit".