4 ms·

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 copie

by ygjb 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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".
    - ygjb 1y 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... Fair use allows for commentary, news reporting, criticism, teaching, research, and scholarship and there are guidelines. Most cases where fair use is sought as a defense requires litigation to clear it up. The other alternative when forking an extremely permissive MIT license is to just follow the license. > Probably they should keep a copy of the original LICENSE file somewhere, sure. And if one asks politely, maybe they will do it. They are required to do so by the original license of Spegel. Does Microsoft ask politely when people violate MS licensing by say, pirating their software, or do they work with 3 letter agencies and a massive enforcement team to ensure their licenses are followed? > 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. Yes. Every other tech company I have worked at, including Mozilla, a company that publishes almost everything they do as open source, has had folks dedicated to ensuring license compliance. > Again: they did credit the original project. So it feels a bit aggressive to say that they "stole it without giving any credit". They didn't provide credit in the way that the license requires. This isn't a case where a new community member forked or copied code into their first open source project. This is one of the biggest companies in the world with a well-known history of taking and using OSS without proper attribution. I like and use many MS products, but they absolutely do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

by ygjb 1y ago

palata 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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".
  - ygjb 1y 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... Fair use allows for commentary, news reporting, criticism, teaching, research, and scholarship and there are guidelines. Most cases where fair use is sought as a defense requires litigation to clear it up. The other alternative when forking an extremely permissive MIT license is to just follow the license. > Probably they should keep a copy of the original LICENSE file somewhere, sure. And if one asks politely, maybe they will do it. They are required to do so by the original license of Spegel. Does Microsoft ask politely when people violate MS licensing by say, pirating their software, or do they work with 3 letter agencies and a massive enforcement team to ensure their licenses are followed? > 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. Yes. Every other tech company I have worked at, including Mozilla, a company that publishes almost everything they do as open source, has had folks dedicated to ensuring license compliance. > Again: they did credit the original project. So it feels a bit aggressive to say that they "stole it without giving any credit". They didn't provide credit in the way that the license requires. This isn't a case where a new community member forked or copied code into their first open source project. This is one of the biggest companies in the world with a well-known history of taking and using OSS without proper attribution. I like and use many MS products, but they absolutely do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.