Getting Forked by Microsoft
Getting Forked by Microsoft
philiplaine.com
Getting Forked by Microsoft
20 comments
-
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.
-
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
<name here>
.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.
-
I'm on your side but we shouldn't mock op but support him.
-
-
This is not just a case of MIT vs GPL. Microsoft has violated the MIT licence.
-
And that kids, is why you don't use the MIT license for stuff you don't want a huge corp to appropriate.
-
I feel this is why GPL exists, corporations are wary of copying it or forking it. It is very restrictive, you shouldn't use it if you don't care if the forked project doesn't attribute you or doesn't contribute anything upstream.
-
No surprise, MS pulled the exact same thing with AppGet, now WinGet.
At this point, be very wary if MS approaches you for your project.
-
-
Not specially you, just a comment about the license: OP's problem with attribution is minor. The major problem they have is that Microsoft took his time to get a personal intro to the project, forked it and didn't contribute back. That's what he's unhappy about. That there was no attribution is barely important.
Yes, choosing MIT doesn't require hem to contribute back and it should've been a restrictive opensource license, but it seems he really thought they asked for a call in order to join in on the development.
-
Thx for the clarification.
-
-
20 comments