I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available.
What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of the project in accordance with the license. If you don’t want that sort of appropriation then you need to pick a license that doesn’t allow it.
So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool?
To me, licenses like MIT or BSD pretty much imply "do whatever you want with this" I know it's not exactly that but if you really care to keep some control over what others do with the code, you need a more restrictive license (and even then people are still going to copy it, especially in the LLM era).
You can "do whatever you want with this code", but there's a catch: you have to give credit to the original author. You might not care about the credit, but lots of people care.
You can't just cherrypick the things you like about a license. All of the conditions of the license apply.
You're thinking about what people can do with the code, like copying, editing, and distributing. This is not it. We're talking about giving credit to the original author, as per the license.
> So if they had left that line in, everything would be cool?
It certainly would be better.
Forks tend not to have -perfect- relationships and tend to cause a bit of mutual annoyance. But attribution is important-- it's the most basic step.
When this maintainer is asked how the projects are related, it'd sure be nice if both projects are telling the same story, instead of one illegally lying about it.
Well, it’s the difference between plagiarism and attribution. If your goal isn’t money but a bare minimum recognition for what was your work vs someone else taking credit for it, yes it’s enough.
A lot of open source software operates on the same principles of academic research. Most academic research is considered freely available, and other researchers can generally use your work as they please, so long as they cite the original author.
In this context, not "citing the original author" in the copyright statement, labeling the repository as a "fork" on GitHub, clearly crediting the original author in a way that clearly describes the fact that a significant portion of their code is used in the new project isn't just a violation of the license, it's plagiarism.
Yes, it would be cool, and it's the usual way to do these things. You can license code under a more restrictive license, and clarify licensing by adding an extra section to the main license, adding the license to a subdirectory, or adding license headers to the individual files.
Whether the MIT license is the right one to choose is probably a different debate.
Microsoft credited the original author and project in the README, which is far more visible than a hidden copyright line somewhere in the terms and conditions. If attribution was what he wanted he should be really happy about he outcome, but clearly that's not what this is about. He is simply pissed that Microsoft used his project.
If they had been factual I the credit I'd agree. When it's actually a fork, why not just say so. "This project is a fork (or based off) Spegel. Thanks to the authors etc" Maybe with a rationale why they forked it. You know, just common decency...
Maybe not a fork, but the author writes "It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source".
If I owe you $100 by contract, I can't just pay you with 1 ton of steel slab delivered to your garage and argue that this is worth more and therefore you should write the debt off.
Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements, this is my same approach with using the MIT license. I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. That's why in this case, I'd reach out to Microsoft to fix that issue, and nothing more.
> I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit.
I have the same reasoning as to why I pick the AGPLv3 license as the default for my new projects. I want any benefits from my code to continue to benefit everyone, even if someone is profiting off of it.
The person I was responding to began with "Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements", and it is clear in his comment that he's not referring to the OP's issue, but the issue in general.
In other words, he's saying that even if it had been some other license, he wants attribution.
That's silly. If you want attribution, say it up front (which could simply mean picking the MIT license).
Because the “payment” that you get for its permissive use is the attribution (which can be personal gratification or it can professionally boost your profile/opportunities). MSFT robbed them of that.
Yeah, as far as I can gather the only thing MS did wrong here is not explicitly crediting the project they forked the code from, and I don't get the impression the author would find adding that one sentence to the docs to be adequate redress. I don't get why you would take personal offense at a big company forking your code so they can mold it to their purposes - the license allows that. Now whether that's the right way for a "friend of the OSS community" to behave is a different question entirely, but anyone who ever bought that horseshit from them has had their head in the sand.
What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of the project in accordance with the license. If you don’t want that sort of appropriation then you need to pick a license that doesn’t allow it.