6 ms·

Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. An org the size of MS should have clear policies and processes of how to handle open sourc

by tacker2000 1y ago

Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. An org the size of MS should have clear policies and processes of how to handle open source forks like this. Unless we assume “bad faith” here. This is a pretty bad look. I wonder how many other projects are not attributed correctly. Are you checking up on them also or just waiting for the next HN post? That said, the author of Spegel should have used another license if he wanted more “recognition” or the like.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> I wonder how many other projects are not attributed correctly. Are you checking up on them also or just waiting for the next HN post? As I wrote in my parallel post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43756102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43756102): these copyright violations (not giving proper attribution of the license requires it is copyright violation) from Microsoft's side (the more, the "better", and the clearer the message) can be considered de-facto, implicitly stated corporate messages from Microsoft's side that they are from now on officially fine with copyright violations, and thus everybody is from now on free to violate the copyright on every software product that Microsoft has ever produced.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- leoqa 1y ago
  Sounds like a very expensive legal gambit.
- xwolfi 1y ago
  You have to prove the mens rea, and even then, people committing crimes don't automatically deserve crimes committed upon them.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    In reality they do, in some cases, e.g. capital punishment.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I think I am being misunderstood here. I do not agree with it, I am just referring to practices in some countries.
owlstuffing 1y ago
[flagged]
beefnugs 1y ago
He is lucky microsoft doesn't have 30,000 ai-agents out there just stealing everything he has ever done and spinning up 10 competitors to each project all with new license and money flow into microsoft in any number of ways. I mean they made sure to get all the consent from all authors on github before training on it right
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
wilg 1y ago
I mean what else are they supposed to say or do to correct a mistake other than "sorry, here's what happened, we have fixed it, we are taking steps to reduce the chances of it happening again"? Sometimes you just have to correct an error.
- epanchin 1y ago
  Ideally a list of other projects they have since found and attributed.
  - wilg 1y ago
    What if there aren't any or they have not yet done that because they wanted to respond to this person first?
  - NewsaHackO 1y ago
    From the tone of the response to Microsoft response, people will not be happy unless Microsoft publicly executed the engineers that did it.
    - Fraterkes 1y ago
      That would be a start yeah
    - kshahkshah 1y ago
      I think people tend to forget that large companies are made up of flawed individuals and their policies mitigate but don't eliminate mistakes
      - oatmeal1 1y ago
        They are also fully funded to compensate when they do something wrong. An apology from a Fortune 500 company with a history of unethical behavior is worthless.
- toobulkeh 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
arkh 1y ago
> Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. Nope, "the revenge of Clippy" is doing the writing.
averageRoyalty 1y ago
> Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. An org the size of MS should have clear policies and processes of how to handle open source forks like this. Unless we assume “bad faith” here. This is a pretty bad look. What would you prefer them do? A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? I agree with the sentiment with these types of comments (I hate PR fluff too), but the aggression when a company has screwed up and not only admits it but tells you their plan going forward is silly. The best case scenario is it does nothing, worst case it encourages them to ignore it next time it happrns.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  Well how does Microsoft react if some company "forgets" to licence windows/office/some other product? Because that is what happened here a clear licence violation so Microsoft essentially pirated the software.
  - davidron 1y ago
    I bet Microsoft would do something similar. If Microsoft entered an agreement with another company, Apple for instance, to build a version of word for the Mac, a fork, and part of the license has a requirement to attribute in the help file or something like branding requirements, and then Apple doesn't do it right, then Microsoft reaches out to Apple and tells them to fix it else be in breach of the license. They fix it, happy happy. They don't fix it and lawyers get paid. This was MIT licensed open source software and an attribution clause was not properly respected. Hardly piracy.
- Vegenoid 1y ago
  Their plan? “We hear you loud and clear and are going to make sure we improve our processes to help us be better stewards in the open-source community”? That’s not a plan. It’s PR fluff. Nobody is expecting this one incident to make Microsoft change. It’s about reputation, which can take a long time to shift, but can be important in the long term. We don’t have to just accept it when a company issues a statement apologizing for their screwup. It’s perfectly acceptable to say “this apology means little to me, and if you want your reputation to change you need to do more”.
optymizer 1y ago
This tsk-tsk is misguided. There's a time and place to shame companies for acting in bad faith, and we should do it, but I don't think it's the case here. It does not seem like damage control for intentional malice. The TL on the project should have done better, but it was a good sign that they had originally taken the time to acknowledge Spegel's author's help. It's very likely that someone else dealt with the actual code and license text and didn't know any better. The PR text is reviewed by lawyers. The default advice from lawyers is "do not admit any wrongdoing". They probably suggested that the license text be fixed silently with no apology. The PR department likely convinced them that a public apology would be good for optics and it doesn't seem soulless either. They should have done better. They admitted that. They may or may not change their internal processes, but it's now in the record book. Case closed. And the author of Spegel should not have used a different license if he wanted "more <<recognition>>". He wanted the recognition specified by the MIT license.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> I wonder how many other projects are not attributed correctly. Are you checking up on them also or just waiting for the next HN post? As I wrote in my parallel post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43756102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43756102): these copyright violations (not giving proper attribution of the license requires it is copyright violation) from Microsoft's side (the more, the "better", and the clearer the message) can be considered de-facto, implicitly stated corporate messages from Microsoft's side that they are from now on officially fine with copyright violations, and thus everybody is from now on free to violate the copyright on every software product that Microsoft has ever produced.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
leoqa 1y ago
Sounds like a very expensive legal gambit.
xwolfi 1y ago
You have to prove the mens rea, and even then, people committing crimes don't automatically deserve crimes committed upon them.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  In reality they do, in some cases, e.g. capital punishment.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I think I am being misunderstood here. I do not agree with it, I am just referring to practices in some countries.

owlstuffing 1y ago

[flagged]

beefnugs 1y ago

He is lucky microsoft doesn't have 30,000 ai-agents out there just stealing everything he has ever done and spinning up 10 competitors to each project all with new license and money flow into microsoft in any number of ways. I mean they made sure to get all the consent from all authors on github before training on it right

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

wilg 1y ago

I mean what else are they supposed to say or do to correct a mistake other than "sorry, here's what happened, we have fixed it, we are taking steps to reduce the chances of it happening again"? Sometimes you just have to correct an error.

epanchin 1y ago
Ideally a list of other projects they have since found and attributed.
- wilg 1y ago
  What if there aren't any or they have not yet done that because they wanted to respond to this person first?
- NewsaHackO 1y ago
  From the tone of the response to Microsoft response, people will not be happy unless Microsoft publicly executed the engineers that did it.
  - Fraterkes 1y ago
    That would be a start yeah
  - kshahkshah 1y ago
    I think people tend to forget that large companies are made up of flawed individuals and their policies mitigate but don't eliminate mistakes
    - oatmeal1 1y ago
      They are also fully funded to compensate when they do something wrong. An apology from a Fortune 500 company with a history of unethical behavior is worthless.
toobulkeh 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

arkh 1y ago

> Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. Nope, "the revenge of Clippy" is doing the writing.

averageRoyalty 1y ago

> Now that you got caught you are fixing it and writing fancy PR fluff. An org the size of MS should have clear policies and processes of how to handle open source forks like this. Unless we assume “bad faith” here. This is a pretty bad look. What would you prefer them do? A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? I agree with the sentiment with these types of comments (I hate PR fluff too), but the aggression when a company has screwed up and not only admits it but tells you their plan going forward is silly. The best case scenario is it does nothing, worst case it encourages them to ignore it next time it happrns.

cycomanic 1y ago
Well how does Microsoft react if some company "forgets" to licence windows/office/some other product? Because that is what happened here a clear licence violation so Microsoft essentially pirated the software.
- davidron 1y ago
  I bet Microsoft would do something similar. If Microsoft entered an agreement with another company, Apple for instance, to build a version of word for the Mac, a fork, and part of the license has a requirement to attribute in the help file or something like branding requirements, and then Apple doesn't do it right, then Microsoft reaches out to Apple and tells them to fix it else be in breach of the license. They fix it, happy happy. They don't fix it and lawyers get paid. This was MIT licensed open source software and an attribution clause was not properly respected. Hardly piracy.
Vegenoid 1y ago
Their plan? “We hear you loud and clear and are going to make sure we improve our processes to help us be better stewards in the open-source community”? That’s not a plan. It’s PR fluff. Nobody is expecting this one incident to make Microsoft change. It’s about reputation, which can take a long time to shift, but can be important in the long term. We don’t have to just accept it when a company issues a statement apologizing for their screwup. It’s perfectly acceptable to say “this apology means little to me, and if you want your reputation to change you need to do more”.

optymizer 1y ago

This tsk-tsk is misguided. There's a time and place to shame companies for acting in bad faith, and we should do it, but I don't think it's the case here. It does not seem like damage control for intentional malice. The TL on the project should have done better, but it was a good sign that they had originally taken the time to acknowledge Spegel's author's help. It's very likely that someone else dealt with the actual code and license text and didn't know any better. The PR text is reviewed by lawyers. The default advice from lawyers is "do not admit any wrongdoing". They probably suggested that the license text be fixed silently with no apology. The PR department likely convinced them that a public apology would be good for optics and it doesn't seem soulless either. They should have done better. They admitted that. They may or may not change their internal processes, but it's now in the record book. Case closed. And the author of Spegel should not have used a different license if he wanted "more <<recognition>>". He wanted the recognition specified by the MIT license.