Nobody should be terribly surprised when a giant corporation behaves like a scumbag; it's a fundamental feature of such organizations. We as individuals have the responsibility of shunning them when they do this.
Aren't they free to decide how their time and effort is used? Do they have some inherent obligation to work for you for free(which is what open source is)?
If you develop some piece of software, and use the open core model, I wouldn't consider you a scumbag.
So I'm having trouble figuring out your position: is Microsoft a scumbag for not open sourcing pylance or not?
FWIW, I was, until recently, a daily user of pyright, and it's, by a million miles, the best LSP for python out there. The maintainer of pyright also contributes a LOT towards pushing forward the static typing ecosystem in python. In fact, the most recent PEP in Python static typing was initiated, drafted, and first implemented, by the maintainer of pyright[0].
Microsoft also has hired Guido Van Rossum to work on Python full time.
So I think calling Microsoft scumbags about an aspect of how they engage with the Python ecosystem is not only unfair, but totally misleading.
No. These things are not the same and they should never be equated.
If one wants to evaluate Microsoft's moral standing with regards to their participation in the Python ecosystem, one must take into account the work done on the Python ecosystem by Microsoft's salaried employees, in their working hours, no?
I don't see the relationship to giant corporations either. Sublime is proprietary, Datomic is, a lot of bespoke tools are because the creators depend on capturing their full value.
It would be bad faith if they removed access to the open source code somehow.