5 ms·

Electron is open-source under an MIT license. If Microsoft can do things now with Electron that it couldn't before, there's arguably something wrong with the p

Electron is open-source under an MIT license. If Microsoft can do things now with Electron that it couldn't before, there's arguably something wrong with the project.

bb88 8y ago
> Electron is open-source under an MIT license. It's not the license at issue, it's the copyright which allows MS to change the license. Yes, developers could fork the project, but that seems premature at this point. What will probably is that MS will make optimizations for VS Code to run even better and then make those optimizations open for everyone.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  >What will probably is that MS will make optimizations for VS Code to run even better and then make those optimizations open for everyone. They already could of with the MIT licensed Electron... Literally nothing stopped them from doing this prior, unless the project as said has a bad structure but I find it hard to believe.
  - bb88 8y ago
    Having control of the copyright gives you control of the development process as well. So getting 1000 patches into a project just becomes a whole lot easier if you own the copyright.
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      You make it sound like Microsoft tried and GitHub shut them down on helping out with Electron?
    - true_religion 8y ago
      If it is MIT, you can relicense, so effectively you have control of the copyright.
      - giancarlostoro 8y ago
        It's as if everyone hates Microsoft enough to believe they have different rights under the MIT license. MIT is as permissive as it gets, if Microsoft wanted to they could of released VS Code as a close sourced but free (as in money) product, and NOBODY not even GitHub would of been able to stop them either!
        bb88 8y ago
        Yes, but then there would be two versions of Electron, the public version and the private version MS would keep internally. This would mean that you'd have to spend work re-merging your changes back with the main branch when a new version of Electron came out. Now there's just one version, and it looks like MS controls the copyright to it. And that means their patches could come first before others.
      - bb88 8y ago
        Nitpick: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I thought I'd clarify. The owner of the copyright can relicense. Third parties can use the code to the license, but cannot relicense the code itself. While MIT is very permissive, it doesn't give you permission to change the license, nor does it grant you the copyright to the underlying code.
paxy 8y ago
It isn't about can or cannot, they just have more motivation now.
interlocutor 8y ago
MIT license does not include a commitment to democratically determine project direction. Project owner has higher influence on project direction, although if the owner makes too many unpopular decisions they run the risk of being overtaken by a fork.

Electron is open-source under an MIT license. If Microsoft can do things now with Electron that it couldn't before, there's arguably something wrong with the project.

bb88 8y ago

> Electron is open-source under an MIT license. It's not the license at issue, it's the copyright which allows MS to change the license. Yes, developers could fork the project, but that seems premature at this point. What will probably is that MS will make optimizations for VS Code to run even better and then make those optimizations open for everyone.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
>What will probably is that MS will make optimizations for VS Code to run even better and then make those optimizations open for everyone. They already could of with the MIT licensed Electron... Literally nothing stopped them from doing this prior, unless the project as said has a bad structure but I find it hard to believe.
- bb88 8y ago
  Having control of the copyright gives you control of the development process as well. So getting 1000 patches into a project just becomes a whole lot easier if you own the copyright.
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    You make it sound like Microsoft tried and GitHub shut them down on helping out with Electron?
  - true_religion 8y ago
    If it is MIT, you can relicense, so effectively you have control of the copyright.
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      It's as if everyone hates Microsoft enough to believe they have different rights under the MIT license. MIT is as permissive as it gets, if Microsoft wanted to they could of released VS Code as a close sourced but free (as in money) product, and NOBODY not even GitHub would of been able to stop them either!
      - bb88 8y ago
        Yes, but then there would be two versions of Electron, the public version and the private version MS would keep internally. This would mean that you'd have to spend work re-merging your changes back with the main branch when a new version of Electron came out. Now there's just one version, and it looks like MS controls the copyright to it. And that means their patches could come first before others.
    - bb88 8y ago
      Nitpick: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I thought I'd clarify. The owner of the copyright can relicense. Third parties can use the code to the license, but cannot relicense the code itself. While MIT is very permissive, it doesn't give you permission to change the license, nor does it grant you the copyright to the underlying code.

paxy 8y ago

It isn't about can or cannot, they just have more motivation now.

interlocutor 8y ago

MIT license does not include a commitment to democratically determine project direction. Project owner has higher influence on project direction, although if the owner makes too many unpopular decisions they run the risk of being overtaken by a fork.