Hacker News Reader

Comment by delta_p_delta_x | Hacker News Reader

> let’s be real here this is really expensive to develop and both us and our employees have bills to pay just like anyone else

Couldn't put it better. FOSS advocates want everything for free and source code released every time, all the time. Who's paying the bills? The rent? The mortgage?

To be precise, the system sucks, but we have to work within it, and that means profit-driven companies which pay employees liveable salaries so said employees can buy the food and shelter they need to experience a decent life.

I'll bet that 95% of FOSS developers either contribute as part their full-time job, or already have full-time jobs with the salary and flexibility that allows them to also contribute to FOSS projects in their free time. Not everyone has this luxury.

View on HN

i don't care. if you don't want to write free software, that's fine with me. but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't offer me a gift and then demand payment

> but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me it's a gift and then demand payment

Who's doing this? VS Code is free; Pylance is free, cppdbg is free, the C# suite is free. However the licences are clear; these extensions are closed source.

VS Code's core editor functionality (Monaco, LSP, DAP, etc) is fully open, and has been regularly repurposed and re-branded by several other companies. I sincerely don't see the problem. If someone else wants to write their own extensions, they are free to; these extensions are Microsoft's IP and hence Microsoft is free to do what it wants with its IP.

It's just disingenuous for Microsoft to say, for example, the cpptools extension is MIT licensed, which it is.

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools?tab=License-1-o...

In reality, it's a MIT-licensed wrapper. The real license is also included in the repository, just not the top level github license.

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/blob/main/Runti...

The disingenuity is what you are condoning. The repo is superficially organized to appear open-source but is actually a minefield.

Github will sometimes say "found other licenses"; the best Github can do is to "report" on the state of a repository; it's up to the community to decide on stricter tolerances for declaring something to be open-source, because as we see here, even a major corporation is willing to engage in subterfuge/exploitation.

Saying something is "open source" provides material benefit: it creates attention, it attracts users, it creates community. Shouldn't a project be fully in-the-spirit of open source to benefit?

There's plenty of case law around the word "free"; it's just too early for the phrase "open source" to have settled case law.

Where has microsoft stated the cpp extension is MIT licensed?

(assuming you haven’t somehow looked at a block of legal text, disregarded the opening paragraph, and assumed the rest of it somehow is to be interpreted in isolation?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com