Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Spegel was published with an MIT license. Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back.

If that's what the license says, why is the author complaining? Microsoft is complying with the license.

That's what you get for not picking the one of the license from the GPL family.

> However, I am not the first and unfortunately not the last person to come across this David versus Goliath-esque experience.

Again, this situation was completely avoidable. Stallman had foreseen this kind of situations literally forty years ago. That's why the Free Software movement exists.

Tangentially related: has anyone notice how the whole Grafana ecosystem is going strong and unaffected by forks and corporate take-overs? I'm pretty sure that the AGPL license is playing a big role into that.



if only you had kept reading 2 more sentences after the one you quoted you'd know:

  "The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source"


Exactly. Microsoft has been doing exactly this kind of crap since their very founding. The counter to it has existed for decades: GPL. And now AGPL for web stuff. How do you think the Linux kernel and GNU runtime have survived this long without the MS Embrace and Extend? GPL.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: