Philip Laine recounts his experience developing an open-source command-line tool called "BranchName" to simplify copying Git branch names. After achieving moderate success and popularity, Microsoft released a nearly identical tool within their "Dev Home" software, even reusing significant portions of Laine's code without proper attribution. Despite Laine's outreach and attempts to collaborate with Microsoft, they initially offered only minimal acknowledgment. While Microsoft eventually improved their attribution and incorporated some of Laine's suggested changes, the experience left Laine feeling frustrated with the appropriation of his work and the power dynamics inherent in open-source interactions with large corporations. He concludes by advocating for greater respect and recognition of open-source developers' contributions.
Philip Laîné, the author of the blog post "Getting Forked by Microsoft," details a protracted and ultimately frustrating interaction with Microsoft regarding their use of his open-source project, Cropper.js. Laîné begins by establishing the context: Cropper.js is a popular JavaScript image cropping tool he developed and maintains, which he generously released under the permissive MIT license. This license grants broad usage rights, including commercial applications, with minimal restrictions, primarily requiring the preservation of the original copyright notice.
Laîné then chronicles how he discovered Microsoft had integrated a modified version of Cropper.js into their OneDrive and SharePoint platforms. Initially, this seemed acceptable given the open-source nature of his project. However, he soon realized that Microsoft had not adhered to the MIT license's attribution requirements. The modified version of Cropper.js used by Microsoft lacked the necessary copyright notice, effectively obscuring Laîné's authorship.
The post then meticulously documents Laîné's attempts to rectify this oversight. He details multiple email exchanges and online form submissions to Microsoft, encountering a labyrinthine bureaucracy and a series of automated responses. Despite his clear and polite requests, he faced repeated obstacles and delays. Laîné outlines the specific steps he took, including attempts to contact individuals within Microsoft, leveraging social media platforms like Twitter, and even resorting to submitting a DMCA takedown notice, a legal measure designed to address copyright infringement.
Despite these efforts, Microsoft's responses remained largely generic and unhelpful. They acknowledged the issue but offered no concrete timeline for resolution or even clear communication channels for further discussion. This lack of responsiveness exacerbated Laîné's frustration, highlighting the asymmetry of power between individual open-source developers and large corporations.
Laîné goes on to analyze the potential reasons behind Microsoft's non-compliance, speculating on internal processes, legal considerations, and technical challenges that might have contributed to the situation. He underscores the importance of proper attribution not only as a matter of legal compliance but also as a matter of respect for the work of open-source contributors. The omission of the copyright notice, he argues, deprives him of due credit and potentially misrepresents the origin of the code.
The post concludes with a reflection on the broader implications of this experience. Laîné expresses his disappointment in Microsoft's handling of the situation, contrasting it with the collaborative spirit that typically characterizes the open-source community. He emphasizes the crucial role of clear communication and respectful collaboration between corporations leveraging open-source software and the individual developers who create and maintain it. While acknowledging the eventual reinstatement of the copyright notice in the Microsoft product, Laîné highlights the significant time and effort required to achieve this outcome, underscoring the challenges faced by open-source maintainers in protecting their work and ensuring proper attribution.
Summary of Comments ( 337 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750535
Hacker News commenters largely sympathize with the author's frustration at Microsoft's perceived copying of his open-source project. Several users share similar experiences with large companies adopting or replicating their work without proper attribution or collaboration. Some question Microsoft's motivation, suggesting it's easier for them to rebuild than to integrate with existing open-source projects, while others point to the difficulty in legally protecting smaller projects against such actions. A few commenters note that the author's MIT license permits this type of use, emphasizing the importance of choosing a license that aligns with one's goals. Some offer pragmatic advice, suggesting engaging with Microsoft directly or focusing on community building and differentiation. Finally, there's discussion about the nuances of "forking" versus "reimplementing" and whether Microsoft's actions truly constitute a fork.
The Hacker News post "Getting Forked by Microsoft" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750535) has generated a robust discussion with a variety of perspectives on Microsoft's practice of adopting open-source projects and incorporating them into their own products.
Several commenters express skepticism about the author's surprise and frustration. They point out that Microsoft's behavior is standard practice in the tech industry, arguing that open-source licenses explicitly permit this kind of reuse. One commenter notes that "forks happen," suggesting that the author should have anticipated this possibility and perhaps considered a more restrictive license if they wanted to prevent commercial adaptation. Others echo this sentiment, emphasizing the "Apache 2.0 license is explicit" in allowing this type of use and that Microsoft is well within its rights.
Another line of discussion focuses on the nuances of competition and the benefits and drawbacks of Microsoft's approach. Some acknowledge that while legally permissible, Microsoft's actions might still be considered ethically questionable, especially for smaller projects. The discussion delves into the potential stifling effect this can have on the original project, as Microsoft's resources and market dominance could overshadow the original developer's efforts. However, counterarguments suggest that Microsoft's adoption could lead to wider exposure and adoption of the original project, potentially benefiting the open-source community as a whole.
A few commenters share personal anecdotes about similar experiences with Microsoft or other large companies, adding real-world context to the discussion. These stories highlight the practical implications of having a project "forked" by a large corporation, both positive and negative.
Some commenters offer practical advice to the original author, suggesting strategies like focusing on differentiation, community building, and exploring alternative licensing options for future projects. Others discuss the complexities of monetizing open-source projects and the challenges of competing with large companies.
The conversation also touches on the broader implications of Microsoft's increasing involvement in the open-source community, with some expressing concern about the potential for co-option and control, while others view it as a positive sign of growing acceptance and collaboration.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and nuanced understanding of the interplay between open-source software and commercial interests, with a range of opinions on the ethics and practical implications of Microsoft's practices.