HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
Azure
peerd
Go2025–2025
Azure / peerd

peerd

Peer to peer distribution of Azure Artifact Streaming.

12Distinct people
14Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
135GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Peer to peer distribution of Azure Artifact Streaming.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 6:01:32 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by 3-hour interval14 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-04-21 11:45:09 UTC to 2025-04-23 01:32:57 UTC.

012342025-04-21 09:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-21 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsApr 21, 09:002025-04-21 12:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-21 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2025-04-21 15:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-21 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2025-04-21 18:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-21 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2025-04-21 21:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 03:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsApr 22, 03:002025-04-22 06:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 09:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 09:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 12:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 15:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 18:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-22 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-22 21:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-23 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 23, 00:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Apr 21, 09:002025-04-21 09:00:00 UTC2025-04-21 12:00:00 UTC202
Apr 21, 12:002025-04-21 12:00:00 UTC2025-04-21 15:00:00 UTC404
Apr 21, 15:002025-04-21 15:00:00 UTC2025-04-21 18:00:00 UTC303
Apr 21, 18:002025-04-21 18:00:00 UTC2025-04-21 21:00:00 UTC404
Apr 21, 21:002025-04-21 21:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 00:002025-04-22 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 03:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 03:002025-04-22 03:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 06:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 06:002025-04-22 06:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 09:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 09:002025-04-22 09:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 12:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 12:002025-04-22 12:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 15:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 15:002025-04-22 15:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 18:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 18:002025-04-22 18:00:00 UTC2025-04-22 21:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22, 21:002025-04-22 21:00:00 UTC2025-04-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 23, 00:002025-04-23 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-23 03:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
I initially was going to say: Failing to abide by the MIT license is copyright infringement. My advice is to contact these guys: https://softwarefreedom.org/ They likely can file a cease and desist on your behalf. However, I took a closer look at the files in question. The MIT license requires that they retain and provide copyright notices, but you never put copyright notices in your files. The only place where you appear to have placed a copyright notice is in the LICENSE file: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/commit/23ed0d60f66dd292... Things become interesting when I look at their LICENSE file. They appear to have tried to relicense this to Apache 2.0 before backpedaling and reinstating the MIT license: https://github.com/Azure/peerd/commit/473a26c808907f2d9f7b7f... Unless they forked from a very early version of the project that d
Read the rest
id not even have the LICENSE file, they removed the sole copyright notice you had in the repository. That brings us back to my original thoughts, which is that they have committed copyright infringement, and you should contact OSS friendly lawyers about it. I am not a lawyer, but I do contribute to various OSS projects and all of the ones to which I have ever contributed have copyright notice headers at the top of every file to ensure proper attribution is maintained no matter where that code is used. Beyond having that sole missing copyright notice reinstated, I am not sure what else you could expect since none of your files have proper copyright headers in them. The SFLC guys would be in a better position to advise you, as they are actual lawyers.
In Getting forked by Microsoft

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.