I mean, the title is “Getting Forked by Microsoft,” not “Microsoft Removed My Copyright Notice.” They don’t even outright state that the fork is missing the required attribution, you have to infer it.
Anyways, the real question should be: what is the most productive form for the project/technology? Separate efforts may not the answer, we're looking for.
Yes, he complains in the last few paragraphs that he feels like this form is a competitor. Says that users sometimes come to him asking for help with the Microsoft fork, etc. Those all very much fall into the domain of "what did you think MIT meant exactly", imo at least.
I don’t mind sharing my software with others, even folks who want to make a profit. Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I’ve only released a few small projects open source. But when I do, I make my projects fully public domain. I’m not interested in feeling any sense of obligation to those who try the software out, so I free them from any obligation to me as well.
That said, I fully support larger projects being GPL, which I think is a more reasonable license for projects that involve dozens or hundreds of contributors and are depended on by millions around the world. But the role of the MIT and Apache style licenses has always felt a little more confusing.
This makes no sense, you want to make sure software gets updated in the future, however small. Permissive licensing allows companies to hide improvements and this in the long term erodes the original. Individuals on the other hand are not bound by legal teams and can work with GPL and similar.
The idea behind permissive licensing like this is that you don't particularly care about "eroding the original": you don't see its ineffable status in relation to others' work as something that must forever be maintained.
I've also leaned toward CC0-style licensing for some of my smaller projects, that are shared for explanatory or artistic purposes. The reasoning is that GPL-style licenses give the code its own 'weight' as a unit, that keeps others from lifing good ideas from the code and incorporating them into their own projects as they wish, at any point in the next ~135 years. (The barriers aren't just the stereotypical "how dare they make me share my code!" but also the realities of license compatibility, having to make sure never to lose any version of the source, and so on.)
I agree with GP that this isn't necessarily the best idea for large projects that exist for their own sake and that companies might find great profit in copying. But it's not like all projects fit that description.
But they wouldn't be under any obligation to you. They would be under obligation to whoever they distribute their modifications of your code. That's it.
Not just forked. Microsoft stole the code without attribution, violating the license terms. Truly shameful behavior. Best case, it was a single engineer who was tasked with duplicating the functionality, but chose the lazier, fraudulent route and was even too lazy to clean things up entirely. Still, MS should own up, correct the record, and make this right.
No it doesn't. It makes it copied without authorization. Stolen means the original owner does not have access which is not the case[0]. This idea that copying is theft was propaganda invented by the MPA[1], and we ought to stop parroting it, even when it's Microsoft doing the unauthorized copying.
Plagiarism is theft because it does take something away from the original author (attribution). Plagiarism and piracy are different concepts. Making a copy and forking the code is not what they did wrong, that part was authorized. Deleting the author's name and pretending it was their original work is the issue.
The idea that piracy is theft was not invented by the MPAA. I arrived at that conclusion myself, and indeed most people I've interacted with find it to be pretty reasonable. It's only ever been a minority of giga-nerds who try to claim that "stealing" cannot cover situations involving a non-scarce resource.
When you download a movie from torrents, you don't submit it for an Oscar nomination claiming you've made it. You just copy a file to your computer intending to kill a few hours of your time while playing it back.
Microsoft®™, however, not only copied the code, but claimed it's theirs.
BlueJeans is one of those absolutely catastrophically stupid branding decisions. There's just........ no justification. It's confusing at best, and abbreviated as BJ at worst.
It’s an overhyped exaggeration at best, but very likely a complete misrepresentation of the policies and how they were used in reality. What you should be outraged by is that lazy hacks can make a living by stirring up fake controversies over intentionally misinterpreting this stuff.
If you’re basing your understanding of the subject based on one anti-DEI activist’s misinterpretation of policies he doesn’t actually know anything about, who didn’t talk to anyone at those schools (even critics of the policy), and who very likely misread statistics and intentionally misrepresented processes, then you are not getting a fair picture. This piece you linked to is a mess of unsubstantiated statements. Several of the links are broken but the one that is still around does not say what he says, so I wouldn’t trust any of the rest of his summarization either.
Of course one should not use an opinion piece as the source when that opinion piece is just commenting on information found elsewhere, but also, in this day and age there's no reason to give up when you encounter a broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200202194620/https://ofew.berk...
A total of 993 applications were received, of which
893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely
on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were
advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration.
Ok, so what exactly is the "high standard" here, and what about the standard do you find it objectionable? The fact that something exists doesn't count.
If you don't know, you're just spreading urban legends and ghost stories.
The text in italics is a verbatim quote from the archived PDF I linked, wherein UC Berkeley describes their hiring process. I encourage you to read it if you want to know further details.
Not the one you're asking, nor the one you meant to ask, but I find it rather objectionable that we are now restricting the production of new memes in academia to the ~25% that is most aligned with a moral fashion that is patently hostile to intellectual freedom. It's good to be willing to consider DEI like any other idea but to endorse it is a clear indication that you only care about truth insofar that it is socially advantageous to do so. You're basically unfit for the job at that point.
> However, other University of California schools have published this information. In one recent search at UC Berkeley employing substantially similar evaluation techniques to those that UC Davis used, there were 893 qualified applicants who submitted complete applications that met the basic job requirements. Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate.
Do you have any substantial criticism of the factual claims made here? Or are you just insisting that this is a misinterpretation, without any evidence?
There's no facts to refute - he just states that this conclusion is true without evidence of how he knows that or what the criteria he's using is.
That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
* Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate.
If someone seeks to disprove the claim that 76% of applicants were rejected based on their diversity statements, they can find alternate figures for the numerator and denominator and offer reasons why their numbers are more authoritative.
> That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
3 out of the four companies I've worked at engaged in explicit discrimination on the basis of gender. As in, alternate interview pipelines where women got multiple chances to pass coding interviews where men got one. And one company even augmented that approach with outright withholding a portion of headcount for "diverse" applicants (which was defined as women and URM men, and in practice women made up over 95% of "diverse" applicants).
If you haven't been witnessed to discriminatory DEI practices, that's fortunate for you. But that's not been the experience of many people. DEI is widely perceived as a dogwhistle for discrimination, because it often is used to refer to discriminatory hiring practices, and I don't think condescension is a way to convince people otherwise.
You don't know what the "diversity criteria" even is. Neither does the parent article. You assume you do and therefore it is bad because something something woke. That's not being condescending, that's just true.
As I said, the entire DEI thing smacks of hysteria and paranoia. Frankly, DEI programs do very little, in general.
I have seen a lot of guys overvalue their skills and undervalue others and then blame "DEI" instead of their own mediocrity.
When I was young I went to school to become a chemical process technician. This was a very attractive education for women because it allowed them to work in factories and oil rigs without getting their hands dirty. It's mostly just sitting in control rooms and such, taking walks to make sure things are running smoothly.
The companies hiring had gender quotas to meet, so this was one field where they filled a lot of their quota. Our class was exactly 50% men, 50% women. I worked my ass off, we were graded 1-6 where 6 is best and I had all 6es except one 5 in one class.
Everyone applied for apprenticeships to Statoil (now Equinor) and from our class they hired one guy with literally perfect grades, and nearly all the girls. Over 80% of the girls were accepted, girls with a grade average of 4.2 compared to my 5.9 got the job. I didn't and neither did any of the other guys in the class except one.
When I worked at a bank, the DEI initiatives were limited to documenting in my yearly review how many rainbow cakes I ate each year and counting my participation in various celebrations.
But I think I was also a beneficiary of DEI, because my boss once told me I couldn't quit because I was the only representative of my race in our department.
My experience with DEI programs at Fortune 500 companies is as follows. At one, candidates got a special box ticked on the list if they met diversity criteria, where one is considered diverse if they're from what is considered an underrepresented group. HR uses it to pressure interviewers into being more lenient in their evaluations and guilt trip about how it's such a shame we're not be able to advance a diverse candidate. Conversely they love hearing when a diverse candidate does well "That's great they did well, and their diverse too!". It all feeds into this subtle culture shift that tries to encourage discrimination without being overtly illegal. At another they decided that management pay would be tied to advancing diversity in the workplace.
I hear all these arguments about how DEI is misrepresented, it's all about making sure everyone feels welcome at the workplace and people aren't discriminated against for their appearance, name, background, etc. It's about introducing diversity of thought to challenge the status quo and avoid group think (good luck expressing any moderately conservative opinion at any of these places though). It's also marketed as making the workforce better reflect the customer base so as to create better products for all. I am completely supportive of those aspirations and feel that DEI programs have done more harm than good in advancing them.
Many people quietly become upset when they see the comparatively mild practices like I have described. They start to wonder if they're going to be targeted unfairly during the next round of layoffs so some manger can help to improve their team's diversity score. They wonder if it's going to be more difficult for them or their kids to get a job. They don't like how any criticism of these programs is silenced and/or dismissed as racism/sexism/fascism/etc. Resentment builds, our society becomes more polarized, extremist views become more palletable, and they take their frustrations out at the ballot box.
These kind of risible DEI ghost stories are exactly what I'm talking about. Y'all take a toothless, mostly lip-service kind of program and have hysterics about it.
Honestly, probably rightly, because mediocre was previous the acceptable status quo, and now they have talented competition.
> They wonder if it's going to be more difficult for them or their kids to get a job
I see. So....only certain kinds of people are entitled to jobs? Those other kinds of people don't struggle with needing jobs or having kids?
Gosh. Sure can't understand why you immediately followed up that statement with a highly defensive one about being "silenced" by being called racist or sexist lmao.
> Y'all take a toothless, mostly lip-service kind of program and have hysterics about it.
How is a reservation system toothless? We were literally designating a chuck of headcount as women-only. This is the most explicit form of discrimination there is.
> Honestly, probably rightly, because mediocre was previous the acceptable status quo, and now they have talented competition.
I stated factual observations of how I observed DEI being implemented, and some insight into how some perceive and react to them negatively. You're attempting to dismiss that with hypotheticals about the talent of the employees and the candidates, both of which you have no basis to make any claims about.
> So....only certain kinds of people are entitled to jobs? Those other kinds of people don't struggle with needing jobs or having kids?
This was not what was stated or implied. You do not get to take a sentence out of context, misrepresent it, and then attack your own misrepresentation.
Everyone deserves the dignity to be gainfully employed without being discriminated against based on their identity. The programs I described are explicitly designed to give advantages to some groups over others.
What has it lead to? There's some who become demoralized and resentful because they perceive their opportunities are going to be limited by their group membership. This is independent of whether these programs are actually affecting hiring decisions or not, the perception matters. It's also led to doubts when a diverse candidate does succeed. The emergence of the DEI hire meme is leveraged to downplay the accomplishments of diverse candidates.
> Gosh. Sure can't understand why you immediately followed up that statement with a highly defensive one about being "silenced" by being called racist or sexist lmao.
The misdirection to color my criticism of DEI as racist/sexist precisely proves my point. It's a tactic to silence opposition to an ideological viewpoint rather than confronting it.
You’ve been conned if you think overactive DEI was anything more than a minor annoyance in 99% of American universities. Did some people overdo it in a destructive way? Of course. But it wasn’t anything that was going to lead to major problems. The problems come from the folks who can’t just roll their eyes and move on but instead feel personally attacked and hold a permanent grudge instead of realizing that they themselves probably weren’t all that special.
Uh, I think it does. A lot of people, myself included, have major problems when "overactive DEI" leads to race being a primary, if not the primary, factor in hiring and admissions decisions. This isn't something one should just "roll their eyes over" and move on.
FWIW, that was my original approach, and I thought that the worst excesses of "wokeism" were just caricatures that the right was using to paint all on the left with a broad brush, so I was pretty dismayed when, over time, I felt that a lot of this "race first" thinking had infested many areas of elite universities. Many university professors (ones who would not have in any way identified with being "on the right") who I deeply respect have spoken out about this, sometimes at great professional cost.
Am I missing where this article actually proposes this “isolated execution environment”? It’s mentioned in the intro and summary (and title), but the rest of the post is mainly a list of why it’s hard to do early verification of eBPF code.
Okay, this is true!
So I’m left wanting to know why the author thinks less rigid “isolation” is a suitable answer to the problem. “JavaScript does something similar” is the only detail I could find. But JavaScript notably does not run in the kernel.
Ultimately this just seems like a post saying “it’s too hard to do everything we want within the current limitations of eBPF. But makes no effort to explain why getting rid of these strictures would be worth the huge security and reliability hole it would be creating, or how they would avoid those issues.
reply