Programming

19763 readers

104 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

Getting Forked by Microsoft (philiplaine.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/programming

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 81 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

This experience has also made me consider changing the license of Spegel, as it seems to be the only stone I can throw.

Dude used MIT license without knowing why GPL exists, then got upset. If you use MIT, you use it because you absolutely do not care if your work is appropriated by others, especially corporations.

It's like he put furniture on the curb with a "free" sign on it and now is upset his stuff is being sold at an antique store.

He has no reason to be salty because he had in effect told Microsoft to take everything and don't give anything back. So yeah, he should change it to GPL like yesterday. GPL was created because of the problem he has now faced.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 4 days ago

IMO, the issue here is that Microsoft appears to have violated the MIT license requiring inclusion of the original author's copyright notice. I think he has every right to be salty about that violation.

In your analogy, the sign on the furniture says:

Free, but if anyone asks, you got this furniture from .

Microsoft took the furniture from the curb, but isn't telling people whom they got it from.

I agree in regards to your opinion that he shouldn't be complaining about the fact that someone forked his project, that just the nature of the MIT license. However, I do think he is justified in being upset that the license was violated. Hopefully this gets remedied; it's not hard nor expensive for Microsoft to add his name to the copyright notice in the license.

[–] Deebster 41 points 4 days ago (1 children)

[MIT] does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else.

Sounds like it wouldn't matter which licence he used. Shitty behaviour from Microsoft.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Microsoft's still has MIT license

[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They deleted the original copyright notice which is basically the only requirement of the MIT licence. The software is stolen.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago

You're right, that's gone

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

They deleted the original copyright notice which is basically the only requirement of the MIT licence. The software is stolen.

Lol reminds me of a movie...

 [the crew is being told their sweded movies have to be destroyed]

Mr. Rooney: "The FBI Warning is at the beginning of the tape."

Jerry: "But we erased that!"

-- Be Kind, Rewind (2008)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago

I'm on your side but we shouldn't mock op but support him.