Not really Microsoft, but someone working for them, Clarity Consulting.
Check this out - I released "Facebook UI for ASP.NET" to open source last March under the BSD license. Here's a link to the source browser: http://facebookui.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/17552 (http://facebookui.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/17552). Go to /trunk/Projects/Terralever.Facebook.UI/FbmlControls/Age18Plus.cs. Here's their source browser: http://facebooktoolkit.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/39697 (http://facebooktoolkit.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/39697) - go to /DEV/Source/Facebook.Web/FbmlControls/Age18Plus.cs.
Note:
* Same base class name (MinimumAgeControl) - not terribly surprising, but interesting nonetheless.
* <inheritdoc /> and protected internal
* The name of the constant FbmlConstants.FB_AGE_18_PLUS.
For more fun, check out MinimumAgeControl.cs and GoogleAnalytics.cs. In MinimumAgeControl, review the CreateContents method and the Render method; in GoogleAnalytics, check out the AddAttributesToRender method.
What will I do? I don't know. All they didn't do was include my copyright notice. But, it is fair to say that, this was an opportunity for my contribution to be noticed by Microsoft and maybe get recruited to work there. That's a big opportunity cost lost. Especially since Microsoft uses it on their site (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ee388574.aspx). :)
Sue them. It's the American way.
Contact the EFF.
Interesting, Myndy. If you apply, this definitely seems the sort of thing you could bring up.
"what kind of projects have you worked on?"
"many kinds, and you stole at least one of them. ya dicks. give me a job or i'm going to sue your asses."
Quote from: rabbit on January 28, 2010, 05:18:16 PM
Contact the EFF.
That's a good idea in general, but maybe not if you're seeking employment with them. :)
Kudos to you for using BSD license. As ironic as this sounds, your code may never have seen such widespread service had it been under a restrictive license like GPL. I would imagine that this applies to many BSD components used in Windows. For example, the Internet may not have been IP-based if the BSD implementation of IP was under a restrictive license. There were many competing network protocols (like SNA for example) that were closed. It is a pity that you weren't given your due credit. You can try complaining I suppose.
Quote from: nslay on January 28, 2010, 10:16:52 PM
Kudos to you for using BSD license. As ironic as this sounds, your code may never have seen such widespread service had it been under a restrictive license like GPL. I would imagine that this applies to many BSD components used in Windows. For example, the Internet may not have been IP-based if the BSD implementation of IP was under a restrictive license. There were many competing network protocols (like SNA for example) that were closed. It is a pity that you weren't given your due credit. You can try complaining I suppose.
I always use BSD or MIT licenses. I'm not a fan of GPL; it's like a cancer IMO.
I will be complaining; we'll see how it goes.
I like GPL and the concepts behind it.
But at the same time, I get into Licensing Hell whenever I try to use others' code, so I license most of my stuff with as unrestrictive licenses as I can to prevent others from going through the same pains.
Quote from: MyndFyre on January 28, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
Quote from: nslay on January 28, 2010, 10:16:52 PM
Kudos to you for using BSD license. As ironic as this sounds, your code may never have seen such widespread service had it been under a restrictive license like GPL. I would imagine that this applies to many BSD components used in Windows. For example, the Internet may not have been IP-based if the BSD implementation of IP was under a restrictive license. There were many competing network protocols (like SNA for example) that were closed. It is a pity that you weren't given your due credit. You can try complaining I suppose.
I always use BSD or MIT licenses. I'm not a fan of GPL; it's like a cancer IMO.
I will be complaining; we'll see how it goes.
GPL is more like swine flu without medication than cancer. I always use BSD/MIT, or just public domain it.
Hopefully things go your way. Like, very your way.
Quote from: Joe on January 29, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
Quote from: MyndFyre on January 28, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
Quote from: nslay on January 28, 2010, 10:16:52 PM
Kudos to you for using BSD license. As ironic as this sounds, your code may never have seen such widespread service had it been under a restrictive license like GPL. I would imagine that this applies to many BSD components used in Windows. For example, the Internet may not have been IP-based if the BSD implementation of IP was under a restrictive license. There were many competing network protocols (like SNA for example) that were closed. It is a pity that you weren't given your due credit. You can try complaining I suppose.
I always use BSD or MIT licenses. I'm not a fan of GPL; it's like a cancer IMO.
I will be complaining; we'll see how it goes.
GPL is more like swine flu without medication than cancer. I always use BSD/MIT, or just public domain it.
Hopefully things go your way. Like, very your way.
The cancer analogy works just fine...
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Joe on January 29, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
Quote from: MyndFyre on January 28, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
Quote from: nslay on January 28, 2010, 10:16:52 PM
Kudos to you for using BSD license. As ironic as this sounds, your code may never have seen such widespread service had it been under a restrictive license like GPL. I would imagine that this applies to many BSD components used in Windows. For example, the Internet may not have been IP-based if the BSD implementation of IP was under a restrictive license. There were many competing network protocols (like SNA for example) that were closed. It is a pity that you weren't given your due credit. You can try complaining I suppose.
I always use BSD or MIT licenses. I'm not a fan of GPL; it's like a cancer IMO.
I will be complaining; we'll see how it goes.
GPL is more like swine flu without medication than cancer. I always use BSD/MIT, or just public domain it.
Hopefully things go your way. Like, very your way.
The cancer analogy works just fine...
Cancer isn't contagious to other people (projects), whereas swine flu (or any flu...) can.
That being said, cancer spreads within the body, taking over other cells, making it apt as well.
In either case, I disagree. Both cases imply accidental spreading, whereas you know exactly what you're doing with GPL.
If accidentally using GPL code => cancer, in the sense that it leads to pain and eventual death, then accidentally using commercial/proprietary code => actual death. I don't think you can separate those, and I don't think either works. :)
All told I reviewed their project vs. mine and concluded that about 40 source files were copied totalling 2,700 lines or so.
I put together an Acrobat file that I'll be emailing to the offenders that captures 10 of the copied files and pretty much makes it obvious that it was copied. Not sure what they're going to do.... :)
If I was you, I'd line my windows with tinfoil, get a better alarm system (that isn't plugged into the phonelines), and start digging yourself an escape tunnel.
Quote from: MyndFyre on January 29, 2010, 10:40:53 AM
All told I reviewed their project vs. mine and concluded that about 40 source files were copied totalling 2,700 lines or so.
I put together an Acrobat file that I'll be emailing to the offenders that captures 10 of the copied files and pretty much makes it obvious that it was copied. Not sure what they're going to do.... :)
Most likely not respond to you. They won't do anything unless you make a big fuss about it, which would probably not involve emailing them directly. Who knows, maybe they do have the time to read their thousands upon thousands of complaint mails, though. Unless this is a smaller company, and not Microsoft, as you mentioned above, I think.
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 10:21:19 AM
Cancer isn't contagious to other people (projects), whereas swine flu (or any flu...) can.
That being said, cancer spreads within the body, taking over other cells, making it apt as well.
In either case, I disagree. Both cases imply accidental spreading, whereas you know exactly what you're doing with GPL.
If accidentally using GPL code => cancer, in the sense that it leads to pain and eventual death, then accidentally using commercial/proprietary code => actual death. I don't think you can separate those, and I don't think either works. :)
There's a reason the phrase "stretching the analogy" exists. There's no reason an analogy has to cover every property of its target.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 10:21:19 AM
Cancer isn't contagious to other people (projects), whereas swine flu (or any flu...) can.
That being said, cancer spreads within the body, taking over other cells, making it apt as well.
In either case, I disagree. Both cases imply accidental spreading, whereas you know exactly what you're doing with GPL.
If accidentally using GPL code => cancer, in the sense that it leads to pain and eventual death, then accidentally using commercial/proprietary code => actual death. I don't think you can separate those, and I don't think either works. :)
There's a reason the phrase "stretching the analogy" exists. There's no reason an analogy has to cover every property of its target.
Then what it comes down to is using a loaded term to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational one.
I call it an inappropriate analogy.
It's not really stretching the analogy because GPL is incredibly contagious while cancer is not ... it has even been called 'viral'. I tend to think GNU is more about hurting evil companies or being the victim of evil companies than they ever were about open source. I don't think GPL is ever reasonable, although there are sometimes legitimate reasons to use it. But I imagine most programmers now-a-days employ it needlessly without much thought. For example, there is a C data structure library, GDSL, that uses the GPL. Even though data structures are very basic components of software, the author has decided that you should be stripped of your rights to your own code for such basic functionality. I'm not disputing the choice to use GDSL in this example, I'm simply pointing out the one-sided nature of the GPL. Qt used to be another ridiculous example. GUI is a basic component of software, but Qt used to impose GPL on programmers wanting a window and buttons ... does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. Thankfully, there is LGPL.
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 10:21:19 AM
Cancer isn't contagious to other people (projects), whereas swine flu (or any flu...) can.
That being said, cancer spreads within the body, taking over other cells, making it apt as well.
In either case, I disagree. Both cases imply accidental spreading, whereas you know exactly what you're doing with GPL.
If accidentally using GPL code => cancer, in the sense that it leads to pain and eventual death, then accidentally using commercial/proprietary code => actual death. I don't think you can separate those, and I don't think either works. :)
There's a reason the phrase "stretching the analogy" exists. There's no reason an analogy has to cover every property of its target.
Then what it comes down to is using a loaded term to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational one.
I call it an inappropriate analogy.
I don't agree. I think cancer is a very appropriate analogy. I don't agree with the principles behind GPL, and I don't like that it forces projects to become GPL.
I like open source, but I don't like forceful open source. GNU is the greenpeace of the software world. fuck 'em. plus, richard stallman eats his own feet pickies. GROOOOSSS. i can't support anything that has a leader who eats his own feet pickies on principle.
I'm much more in agreement with the principles behind licenses akin to the MIT license.
Quote from: nslay on January 29, 2010, 05:44:15 PM
It's not really stretching the analogy because GPL is incredibly contagious while cancer is not ... it has even been called 'viral'.
I think the way you're supposed to look at it is how it spreads. Cancer spreads very quickly (when untreated :)), and so does the GPL.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 05:50:35 PM
I don't agree. I think cancer is a very appropriate analogy. I don't agree with the principles behind GPL, and I don't like that it forces projects to become GPL.
I like open source, but I don't like forceful open source. GNU is the greenpeace of the software world. fuck 'em. plus, richard stallman eats his own feet pickies. GROOOOSSS. i can't support anything that has a leader who eats his own feet pickies on principle.
I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 05:50:35 PM
I'm much more in agreement with the principles behind licenses akin to the MIT license.
Same. I still respect GPL, though.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 05:50:35 PM
I think the way you're supposed to look at it is how it spreads. Cancer spreads very quickly (when untreated :)), and so does the GPL.
No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.
I'm operating under the assumption that a hypothetical project would benefit from using the code. Of course they "choose" to become GPL when they use GPL code, but that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make; it at least has the potential to prevent otherwise interested programmers from using and promoting open source code.
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
Same. I still respect GPL, though.
I have a minimal amount of respect for it. It's a small little grain of respect, though. Very similar to the kind of respect I have for greenpeace. kind of like "oh... you guys are cute. trying to force everyone to support your cause."
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.
Yes, and, so? Sometimes the benefit of using nice code outweighs the retarded downfall of making your code GPL. It's kind of like eating delicious cancerous foods. You know that you'll probably get stomach cancer, but it's just too delicious to stop.
@iago: Shh! Let's talk about MY problems here for a while!
Quote from: MyndFyre on January 29, 2010, 07:23:20 PM
@iago: Shh! Let's talk about MY problems here for a while!
Psh, this isn't much of a problem. It gives you leverage over a company you want to work for! :)
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.
I'm operating under the assumption that a hypothetical project would benefit from using the code. Of course they "choose" to become GPL when they use GPL code, but that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make; it at least has the potential to prevent otherwise interested programmers from using and promoting open source code.
GPL is largely to protect programmers from corporations and other Big Evil Entities who are trying to benefit from work that somebody else did for free. I mean, why should somebody profit off my hard work when I get nothing (or nearly nothing)? BSD, MIT, etc are useful, but they don't stop others from profiting off somebody else's hard work.
Myndfyre -- that's getting alllllmost back onto your topic. ;)
Also, for what it's worth, I've run into a few projects that I wanted to use that used GPL. I asked the authors specifically if I could use part of their code in mine under a different license, and they granted me permission. Most of the time, the programmers aren't trying to force others to use GPL, and they'll happily re-license bits of code for you without any trouble.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2010, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: iago on January 29, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.
Yes, and, so? Sometimes the benefit of using nice code outweighs the retarded downfall of making your code GPL. It's kind of like eating delicious cancerous foods. You know that you'll probably get stomach cancer, but it's just too delicious to stop.
Your exact words were, "GPL spreads quickly when untreated" -- that's what that quote was referring to. Your "so?" implies that what I said was meaningless and, while that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that it's an intention spread.
Quote from: iago on January 30, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
GPL is largely to protect programmers from corporations and other Big Evil Entities who are trying to benefit from work that somebody else did for free. I mean, why should somebody profit off my hard work when I get nothing (or nearly nothing)? BSD, MIT, etc are useful, but they don't stop others from profiting off somebody else's hard work.
Which I'm not sure I agree with.
Quote from: iago on January 30, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
Also, for what it's worth, I've run into a few projects that I wanted to use that used GPL. I asked the authors specifically if I could use part of their code in mine under a different license, and they granted me permission. Most of the time, the programmers aren't trying to force others to use GPL, and they'll happily re-license bits of code for you without any trouble.
That's cool, but I'm not convinced it's true in general. It also doesn't remove the discouragement that's clearly there.
Quote from: iago on January 30, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
Your exact words were, "GPL spreads quickly when untreated" -- that's what that quote was referring to. Your "so?" implies that what I said was meaningless and, while that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that it's an intention spread.
sometimes you can operate on cancer.
GPL is one of those things that works ideally in an ideal environment. If everyone decides to go GPL, everyone benefits. Like socialism.
(Now that I've ensured we never get back on topic..)
Socialism killed 6 million Jews. Are you saying that GPL is a Jew murder machine?
To continue this retarded path of argument......
Christianity has killed more in their history.
Democracy has also killed more.
Yeah, but relatively...Socialism killed 6 million in a few years, plus all the enemy soldiers. Christianity and Democracy may have killed more, but not in such a short amount of time.
So, why's it matter?
Also, it's nonsense -- socialism didn't kill those people. Brutal governments did, and that's not what socialism is about. The whole socialism thing is a bit of a charade in that case.
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2010, 05:21:05 AM
GPL is one of those things that works ideally in an ideal environment. If everyone decides to go GPL, everyone benefits. Like socialism.
(Now that I've ensured we never get back on topic..)
that's not true. an entire industry would be decimated. no reasonable number of people would be able to make money from software.
say what you will about profiting from software, but it's not something i'm willing to forfeit.
Quote from: rabbit on January 30, 2010, 07:25:09 AM
Socialism killed 6 million Jews. Are you saying that GPL is a Jew murder machine?
???????
Fucked up people kill people, not religions or systems of government.
National Socialism was created by a fucked up guy as an excuse to kill people. Seems like it worked for a few years.
Quote from: Armin on January 30, 2010, 10:19:22 PM
Fucked up people kill people, not religions or systems of government.
yes, but you'd be pretty naive to assume religions or systems of governments don't inspire murder, etc.
The arrogance embedded in the religion or system of government is what inspires murder.
first!
Quote from: rabbit on January 30, 2010, 10:44:50 PM
National Socialism was created by a fucked up guy as an excuse to kill people. Seems like it worked for a few years.
That wasn't socialism.
Quote from: iago on January 31, 2010, 12:56:18 AM
Quote from: rabbit on January 30, 2010, 10:44:50 PM
National Socialism was created by a fucked up guy as an excuse to kill people. Seems like it worked for a few years.
That wasn't socialism.
I'd have to say it was. Socialism predominantly is an economic system; it doesn't not prescribe whether nationalism must play a part. In the case of the Nazis, it was socialism that played predominantly into nationalism. That nationalism was used as fuel for a lot of bad stuff.
Quote from: Armin on January 30, 2010, 11:35:49 PM
The arrogance embedded in the religion or system of government is what inspires murder.
maybe. i don't think i agree, and i don't think i see how it matters.
Quote from: Sidoh on January 31, 2010, 02:16:01 AM
Quote from: Armin on January 30, 2010, 11:35:49 PM
The arrogance embedded in the religion or system of government is what inspires murder.
maybe. i don't think i agree, and i don't think i see how it matters.
don't worry, it doesn't.
I'd like to know how this turns out Mynd... ever get a response back?
No, I haven't heard back. I am speaking with a lawyer on Wednesday.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 01, 2010, 08:21:44 PM
No, I haven't heard back. I am speaking with a lawyer on Wednesday.
nice! Are you contacting a lawyer to see what your options are, or did Microsoft schedule an appointment with one of their corporate lawyers?
Quote from: Sidoh on February 01, 2010, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 01, 2010, 08:21:44 PM
No, I haven't heard back. I am speaking with a lawyer on Wednesday.
nice! Are you contacting a lawyer to see what your options are, or did Microsoft schedule an appointment with one of their corporate lawyers?
To see what my options are. Again, Microsoft isn't the offending party here.
Update: My lawyer said that I should register the copyright as soon as possible, but that he certainly thinks that the company should be responsive. We're waiting til Friday to see if they answer, and if not I'm supposed to basically tell them, "Hey, I'm reminding you that you did this and also letting you know I got an attorney."
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 03, 2010, 03:57:06 PM
Update: My lawyer said that I should register the copyright as soon as possible, but that he certainly thinks that the company should be responsive. We're waiting til Friday to see if they answer, and if not I'm supposed to basically tell them, "Hey, I'm reminding you that you did this and also letting you know I got an attorney."
/cheer
Well, good luck, Myndy. :)
When they settle for millions, transfer some into my account so I can buy some Thai hookers.