3 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 sou

> 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”.
user_7832 1y ago
I’d like them to explicitly set out how they’re going to avoid such an issue occurring in the future, rather than symptomatically commenting on an HN post that’s now a top post. They say: > 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. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention. We will improve the way we work and collaborate in open source and are always open to feedback. …which is a lot of nice words with absolutely NO accountability. They could write a sticky note “do better” and technically that’s all that’s required from their side. Is that okay with you?
mauer1361 1y ago
>A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? Yes, great idea.
hmottestad 1y ago
What would Microsoft do if I forked their repo, removed all the licenses and then held talks at conferences about my amazing new tool? Pretty sure their legal department would have my fork obliterated from the face of the earth and I would be crossing my fingers that all I got was a cease and desist letter instead of a lawsuit in Texas.

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”.

user_7832 1y ago

I’d like them to explicitly set out how they’re going to avoid such an issue occurring in the future, rather than symptomatically commenting on an HN post that’s now a top post. They say: > 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. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention. We will improve the way we work and collaborate in open source and are always open to feedback. …which is a lot of nice words with absolutely NO accountability. They could write a sticky note “do better” and technically that’s all that’s required from their side. Is that okay with you?

mauer1361 1y ago

>A public flogging? Bring back the stocks? Yes, great idea.

hmottestad 1y ago

What would Microsoft do if I forked their repo, removed all the licenses and then held talks at conferences about my amazing new tool? Pretty sure their legal department would have my fork obliterated from the face of the earth and I would be crossing my fingers that all I got was a cease and desist letter instead of a lawsuit in Texas.