peerd

Yep, there's an issue with 200+ reactions: https://github.com/Azure/peerd/issues/109

Forking might be the wrong word, what happened here looks more like (somewhat obfuscated) plagiarism. I analyzed the 2 repositories for copy/pasted lines using PMD's CPD (copy/paste detector) - using the first commit of peerd and one from spegel that was from around the same time. There are some clear duplications, e.g. 178 lines here: https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/64b8928943ddd73691d0b5d8... correspond to this: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/ed21d4da925b9a179c... Also 44 lines here: https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/ed21d4da925b9a179c... and https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/64b8928943ddd73691d0b5d8... but the full files are almost identical, only a few edits that break the complete equality. Also https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/ed21d4da925b9a179c... matches https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/64b8928

Very possible, from the in repo documentation (which credits Spegel yet again) https://github.com/Azure/peerd/blob/main/docs/design.md it seems like there was a particular engineer at Microsoft who was working on Azure Container Registry who found it useful to integrate Azure Container Registry. If they contributed it upstream, would we be discussing a blog post "how dare evil megacorp submit a PR that only implements their API! embrace extend extinguish!"? Probably.

The commit histories for the LICENSE files in the two repositories are rather interesting. The original author placed a single copyright notice in that file. Microsoft on the other hand published it with their copyright notice and a Apache 2.0 license in place of the original copyright notice and MIT license. They also put copyright Microsoft and license apache 2.0 headers on all files. They then changed the Apache 2.0 license to MIT, but left their copyright notice in place of the original copyright notice in LICENSE: https://github.com/Azure/peerd/commit/473a26c808907f2d9f7b7f... Unless they forked a very early version that did not even have the LICENSE file, such that they never removed the original notice, this looks like copyright infringement to me. That said, I am not a lawyer.