Extinguishing something that has a zero competitive threat? Now that would be evil!
I think open-source community needs to decide whether their stuff comes with strings attached or not and use appropriate licences.
I think open-source community needs to decide whether their stuff comes with strings attached or not and use appropriate licences.
I've heard similar stories coming out of Apple related to csound.
No. Microsoft never wanted to acquire anything.
They brought him in for a PM interview and he failed.
He wanted more than Microsoft was willing to give.
It was a mutual decision.
For anyone who was involved in an acquisition, it's a polite way to say "we're not interested". And considering he describes his PM interview as "I met with four different people; three of the meetings were more like your typical interviews;" it sounds like he went through the typical hiring pipeline because an employee gave him a referral.
Real acqui-hires are nothing like what he describes.
I have no clue. It also seems to trip some throttling in HN's code. I have unapproved opinions I suppose? Maybe dang knows the reason.
> He asked for an acqui-hire instead, and was told that’s not possible.
The funniest thing are his grandiose claims that he "could definitely have obtained a patent" for his package manager. Despite NuGet being 10+ years old and the fact that earlier in the article he explicitly states that he wrote AppGet so that he could replicate the Linux experience on Windows [0]...
That gives the reader an interesting insight on why he might have failed his interview.
[0] https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22
It's understandable, however, but people really need to decide if their code is "fully open source" and anyone can snap it up and fork it, or if there are other strings attached.
To be fair, even the FSF has done the "take the ball and try to go home" with the GPL3 in some ways - not liking aspects of what they previously allowed.