"open sourced a product and released it for free but it's not what I like"
Open sourced a product and released a different product that has built-in tracking, is a walled garden for extensions and who knows what else.
An elaborate fraud.
Open sourced a product and released a different product that has built-in tracking, is a walled garden for extensions and who knows what else.
An elaborate fraud.
This isn't fraud, this is literally MS going "here's the MIT licensed version, and here's our own variant of that, based on obeying that license." And then they go one step further and say "We're not going to tell you that only our product exists, we are explicitly telling you where to get the MIT licensed source code, which isn't even an MIT license requirement".
This is exactly what good open source practices look like.
> A Cuck License is a permissive software license that that does not enforce the freedom of derivative works. This means that anyone can take software licensed under a Cuck License and turn it into proprietary software, effectively cucking the original author.
> Examples of Cuck Licenses are the MIT license and BSD license.
> Cuck License consequences:
> There have been instances where developers's usage of Cuck Licenses has backfired. One notable example is Andrew Tanenbaum' MINIX, which got taken by Intel and turned into spyware called the Intel Management Engine. Tanenbaum went on to say:
> "Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs. A company as big as Intel could obviously write its own OS if it had to."
> However, Tanenbaum maintains that he made the correct choice licensing MINIX under the 3-clause BSD License.
Even giving your code to the public domain is better than an MIT or BSD license; corporations will still be able to make it proprietary but at least it clears the air around the 'interesting question' of mixing MIT/BSD code into a copyleft project and distributing the whole lot under a copyleft license.
Maybe in the US, but much of the world doesn't recognise waving away all author rights voluntarily. The closest thing to worldwide public domain is probably the Creative Commons Zero licence.
I'm serious, how many German individuals do you think would refuse to install sqlite on their personal computer because they lack a technically valid license for it? A few such weirdos doubtlessly exist but you can safely ignore them.
SQLite has a good track record but I can imagine another strongly religious developer taking advantage of authorship rights to damage some small EU-based social organization they strongly disagreed with; just an example.
As for the weirdos, as I said SQLite has a good track record, but I'd think twice over a much smaller dependency. However, I've seen enough disregard for FOSS licenses in business to know the weirdos are few. I guess you either care about license minutae or you don't.
Basically: Microsoft is betting that people care more about free as in beer than exercising software freedom. So far, they seem to be correct.
The point of this comment is that the telemetry is documented and able to be disabled.
For those who find the closed capabilities and extensions distasteful there is opportunity to make their own.
The producer gives you two options to aquire that chocolate.
First option is a pile of ingredients, a plain plastic wrapper and a recipe. You are obviously required to make the chocolate yourself, but what you get is the original chocolate as advocated by the company.
Second option is a finished product that has a pretty decorated package and tastes a bit different than original chocolate. You can't quite put your finger on why, but at least you don't have to make it yourself!
Maybe "fraud" is a bit too strong word. We could go with "consumer deceit" instead.
It would be a fraud if the label on the product you buy omitted some ingredients, but it's not the case here: Microsoft doesn't claim its binaries are the result of a vanilla make on their source!