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.
Google is shifting internal Android development to a private model, similar to how it develops other products. While Android will remain open source, the day-to-day development process will no longer be publicly visible. Google claims this change will improve efficiency and security. The company insists this won't affect the open-source nature of Android, promising continued AOSP releases and collaboration with external partners. They anticipate no changes to the public bug tracker, release schedules, or the overall openness of the platform itself.
Hacker News users largely expressed skepticism and concern over Google's shift towards internal Android development. Many questioned whether "open source releases" would truly remain open if Google's internal development diverged significantly, leading to a de facto closed-source model similar to iOS. Some worried about potential stagnation of the platform, with fewer external contributions and slower innovation. Others saw it as a natural progression for a maturing platform, focusing on stability and polish over rapid feature additions. A few commenters pointed out the potential benefits, such as improved security and consistency through tighter control. The prevailing sentiment, however, was cautious pessimism about the long-term implications for Android's openness and community involvement.
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.