You should be pro-neither. Microsoft used to be against FOSS because they thought it would make them more money; Microsoft is currently friendlier to FOSS because they think it will make them more money. Does that make them bad people? No because all businesses are that way, even the vaunted "don't be evil" Google.
Yesterday I decided to write some C# code on Linux. That's easy, I thought: VSCode and .NET Core can both be found in Arch's repos these days. I just have to set an environment variable and edit VSCode's settings to disable telemetry... But alas! It turns out that I need to install Microsoft's proprietary release of Visual Studio Code because the C# debugger is only licensed to work with Visual Studio Code
Here's the Github issue about it, providing a bit of context and a lot of useless discussion: https://github.com/dotnet/core/issues/505
The actual binary releases of Visual Studio Code
https://code.visualstudio.com/license
And here's the license for VSCode itself
"This license applies to the Visual Studio Code product. Source Code for Visual Studio Code is available at https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode under the MIT license agreement..."
Source code and final product have different licenses but VSCode and Visual Studio Code refer to the same thing. If you're using the official release channel then you should have the final product that is licensed to use the debugger.
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/labels/os-freebsd
However, placing all companies in the same bucket is committing a similar mistake.
There is definitely a “gradient of morality” amongst companies, despite all of them doing things because they think it is what will make them the most money in the long run.
A company building products that end up aiding the carrying out of genocides, for instance, is clearly on a more extreme end of the spectrum than a company making money selling music streaming subscriptions.
Couldn't that describe just about any company or open source project?
A database and office software end up helping you manage and track your genocide.
A camera company's products and photo/video editing software end up helping people create beheading videos and child porn.
When we create a general purpose product and release it to the world, we lose control of who uses it and for what purposes. In fact, that is a specific requirement for free and open source software licenses.
But perhaps you'd agree with me that there's a line between a company making products like cameras - which can certainly be used to cruel ends, but typically easily replaced by any of your competitor's products, and not pivotal to such efforts - and a company building a product that has no real replacement, is central to anti-human practices, and routinely ignores the criticisms and suggestions of human rights groups around the world.
I said that if I worked for a camera company, of course I would know that our products would be used for all sorts of different purposes beyond our control, but if the camera company was doing special partnerships with porn companies I would probably quit.
(For anyone who is thinking "what's wrong with adult porn?" I'm just sharing my feeling from that time. Substitute "child porn traffickers" or "genocidal maniacs" to get an idea of where I was coming from.)
I wasn't comparing videos of consenting adults with genocidal maniacs.
I was sharing a real life example of a situation where I had no problem building a general purpose product that anyone could use, while at the same I might object to special deals or promotions with an industry I was uncomfortable with at the time.
The only reason I even mentioned porn and genocide in the same sentence was to say "you may not relate to my porn example, but there is probably some other situation - like a custom feature for genocidal maniacs - that you would personally object to." And I didn't bring up genocide out of the blue, it was the very topic of the thread I was replying to.