Hacker News Reader

Comment by injidup | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I'd like to kindly point out that the real issue here is that it claims to be open source, while the most important parts are not. We are not entitled to demand that entities make their software open source, but accusations of deception don't fall under the scope of entitlement.

I don't think it's deceptive to have an MIT-licensed core editor (which is distributed by MS under a custom license) and proprietary extensions.

Like many OSS enthusiasts, I did some initial research on VSCode/VSCodium and decided to install the latter (similar to Chrome/Chromium). As I kept using it I discovered that some MS extensions would refuse to run on VSCodium without workarounds. At that point I was fully aware of the license situation and still decided to switch to VSCode for convenience.

My point is that most software developers are capable of understanding how VSCode and its "useful extensions" are licensed; it's not a new concept. And from there, each individual can choose what tools they use according to their preferences.

There is no claim anywhere that the entire product is open source. This is made up hyperbol.

On the vscode landing page they say. "built on open source" with a link to where you can clearly read the license. The ONLY thing that is important is the licence. This clarifies that parts of the product are not open source. At this point you can either use the product or not use the product. But as YOU didn't build it or pay for it you have no place to complain. This is the same sense of entitlement that causes people to harass open source maintainers to fix a bug or implement some feature. People want everything for free and are outraged when they find that the world is not so. Yes it is convenient to go to the package manager and find just what you were looking for without having to do any work or commit any contribution but this is a privilege and not a right. It's amazing that any open source exists at all and where it exists we should say thankyou and where it doesn't either button up and pay or build it yourself.

Vast majority of software we use are based on open-source. I'd argue that stating "built on open source" is sort of paltering.

> But as YOU didn't build it or pay for it you have no place to complain.

I disagree with this point. You're conflating legitimate criticism or discussion about the model (which many have differing opinions on) with the harassment of open-source maintainers - something I strongly oppose as well. Could it be that past negative experiences have made you overly defensive? If so, I understand, but I believe it's a bit misplaced in this context.

They don't just state "built on open source" as an obscure deceptive slogan. They clarify quite clearly what it means.

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/faq#_what-does...

This clarification has been there since at least 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200531093348/https://code.visu...

And slighting different wording but also clear has been there earlier.

You may not like the non open source license but it is not deceptive. It clearly states what it is.

Why use such a slogan at all, if you need to explain what you mean elsewhere? It's sketchy.

The slogan is true and useful to know. If I don't know anything about VScode and I land on the page and I see that it's built on open source I would find that interesting. If I was a reasonable person the first thing I would do is then read further and find out more about the project. I would find that most of the code is released under MIT and that the release build from microsoft has other proprietary modules attached. I could then delve deeper and make a rational decision as to whether this tool is suitable for my project or business.

The first thing I would NOT do is get on hacker news and bitch about how the project is being deceptive and evil. That is just lazy and entitled thinking.

"most important" is entirely subjective.

I'd rather "parts truly open and parts proprietary", than "whole not open but pretending to be".

You're right, it's a subjective matter. While your point is valid, I'd also add that the tool's widespread popularity is largely due to the high-quality extensions, many of which are not open source.

Maybe that's true, but this isn't a problem with open source. There's lots of popular proprietary software.

Talk about hyperbole, lol.

You make it sound like poor and good hearted Microsoft is being abused by evil ungrateful kids. It’s time this crappy company gives something back for decades of evil that they’ve brought on OSS community.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com