5 ms·

I believe this was said when the Github repository[1] was posted yesterday, but... It's pretty wild that Google's releasing a closed-source plugin for Microsoft

by xd1936 8y ago

I believe this was said when the Github repository[1] was posted yesterday, but... It's pretty wild that Google's releasing a closed-source plugin for Microsoft's open-source code editor in 2019. 1. https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode

paxys 8y ago
Pretty weird decision overall, considering you can always download the extension package and look at the code in there.
- skybrian 8y ago
  It seems like a similar situation to the web. Source is not available for most of Google's websites, even though you can decompile the minimized JavaScript. Everyone understands you can't put secrets in there.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Being able to see the source is not the same as open source. Being able to see the source doesn't mean you can fork it, resell it, or even use it without permission. Plenty of proprietary products are made in languages where the code is not compiled, such as proprietary PHP platforms. Presumably, since the plugins are free here, if Google isn't open sourcing it, they don't want other companies to lift their work and use them in competing projects. Or, just as likely, the Googler that wrote it has some bureaucratic process they didn't go through yet to open source it, and they intend to change the license later.
  - paxys 8y ago
    Open source also doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. They can make the source code public on GitHub under a proprietary license, which doesn't let anyone reuse or resell it.
  - aquova 8y ago
    I'm not too familiar with open source licenses, but does a license exist that allows someone to (enforceably) open source their code with the stipulation that it is for academic/security purposes, but forbids forking/reselling/other usage?
    - billyjobob 8y ago
      Sure there are such licenses, but they aren’t Open Source. By definition they are proprietary.
      - da_chicken 8y ago
        That depends on what you mean. Sometimes "open source" means "you can see the source code". Sometimes "open source" means "meets the requirements for software licenses under the Open Software Initiative's definitions." Similarly, sometimes "free software" means "provided at no monetary expense" and sometimes it means "meets the requirements for software licenses under the Free Software Foundation's definitions." People really, really like to pretend that "free software" and "open source" are extremely simple concepts and synonymous terms. They're not. People like to pretend they're controlled terms and that the plain English meaning isn't valid. That's absurd. Neither one is particularly easy to understand because both are much more deeply nuanced than you see at first glance, and one look at free and open software licensing comparisons [1] will tell you that there is obviously significant complexity going on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
        skybrian 8y ago
        This was settled many years ago by coming up with an official definition of "open source" [1] that was then popularized. It's a well-known industry standard. While nobody can prevent you from using the term incorrectly, you're going to get a lot of pushback if you do due to the confusion it causes. There are a lot of other possible licenses and just because they don't meet the open source definition doesn't mean they are bad. I disagree with the people who say the opposite of "open source" is proprietary. [1] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
justinclift 8y ago
Semi-related, was wondering how much telemetry / user tracking this does. Figured we'd be able to look at the source to know. Guess not. :(
DannyBee 8y ago
Microsoft has numerous closed source plugins and pieces for vscode, so I guess it's hard for me to see what is that wild about it? (If you really want me to blow your mind: the pm on the Google project was the pm for vscode)
- devoply 8y ago
  So what's the closed sourced about? I would hazard it's about Amazon or Microsoft not forking the product for their eco-systems? Which prompts lock-in, but I guess that's fine as Google is not the clear winner in this fight.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    I'd turn it around: What does open sourcing it buy them? The number of community contributions/involvement in this type of thing is small (in most cases), it also requires a lot of work upfront to integrate well with the OSS community (or you just end up pissing people off), and in practice you want to control the experience and product direction anyway (since it is part of your baseline experience for your platform), so you just piss off the community. What is the net positive? Not just for Google, but for anyone? I don't think it's about lock in so much as no perceivable benefit for trying to get this particular thing off the ground ATM. I don't think anyone is going to succeed with locking someone in with IDE plugins, and i don't think anyone is trying (even MS). (I'll make the disclaimer that i actually could have changed this decision but chose not to and i'm even a card carrying member of the FSF)
    - ljm 8y ago
      Would that not also suggest poor leadership/stewardship? Open sourcing something shouldn't suddenly mean that a community turns up and takes over the project with unreasonable or out-of-scope demands. You can be open source without requesting contributions or building a tribe around it. You can be open source and say no to things you don't like: go ahead and fork and adapt it to your own needs.
      - 8y ago
KorematsuFred 8y ago
Part of the reason why some things are kept closed source is because of the quality of code itself that might hurt brand image. For things like IDE plugins it always makes businsess sense to make them fully open source if not from day 1.

by xd1936 8y ago

paxys 8y ago

Pretty weird decision overall, considering you can always download the extension package and look at the code in there.

skybrian 8y ago
It seems like a similar situation to the web. Source is not available for most of Google's websites, even though you can decompile the minimized JavaScript. Everyone understands you can't put secrets in there.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Being able to see the source is not the same as open source. Being able to see the source doesn't mean you can fork it, resell it, or even use it without permission. Plenty of proprietary products are made in languages where the code is not compiled, such as proprietary PHP platforms. Presumably, since the plugins are free here, if Google isn't open sourcing it, they don't want other companies to lift their work and use them in competing projects. Or, just as likely, the Googler that wrote it has some bureaucratic process they didn't go through yet to open source it, and they intend to change the license later.
- paxys 8y ago
  Open source also doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. They can make the source code public on GitHub under a proprietary license, which doesn't let anyone reuse or resell it.
- aquova 8y ago
  I'm not too familiar with open source licenses, but does a license exist that allows someone to (enforceably) open source their code with the stipulation that it is for academic/security purposes, but forbids forking/reselling/other usage?
  - billyjobob 8y ago
    Sure there are such licenses, but they aren’t Open Source. By definition they are proprietary.
    - da_chicken 8y ago
      That depends on what you mean. Sometimes "open source" means "you can see the source code". Sometimes "open source" means "meets the requirements for software licenses under the Open Software Initiative's definitions." Similarly, sometimes "free software" means "provided at no monetary expense" and sometimes it means "meets the requirements for software licenses under the Free Software Foundation's definitions." People really, really like to pretend that "free software" and "open source" are extremely simple concepts and synonymous terms. They're not. People like to pretend they're controlled terms and that the plain English meaning isn't valid. That's absurd. Neither one is particularly easy to understand because both are much more deeply nuanced than you see at first glance, and one look at free and open software licensing comparisons [1] will tell you that there is obviously significant complexity going on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
      - skybrian 8y ago
        This was settled many years ago by coming up with an official definition of "open source" [1] that was then popularized. It's a well-known industry standard. While nobody can prevent you from using the term incorrectly, you're going to get a lot of pushback if you do due to the confusion it causes. There are a lot of other possible licenses and just because they don't meet the open source definition doesn't mean they are bad. I disagree with the people who say the opposite of "open source" is proprietary. [1] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

justinclift 8y ago

Semi-related, was wondering how much telemetry / user tracking this does. Figured we'd be able to look at the source to know. Guess not. :(

DannyBee 8y ago

Microsoft has numerous closed source plugins and pieces for vscode, so I guess it's hard for me to see what is that wild about it? (If you really want me to blow your mind: the pm on the Google project was the pm for vscode)

devoply 8y ago
So what's the closed sourced about? I would hazard it's about Amazon or Microsoft not forking the product for their eco-systems? Which prompts lock-in, but I guess that's fine as Google is not the clear winner in this fight.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  I'd turn it around: What does open sourcing it buy them? The number of community contributions/involvement in this type of thing is small (in most cases), it also requires a lot of work upfront to integrate well with the OSS community (or you just end up pissing people off), and in practice you want to control the experience and product direction anyway (since it is part of your baseline experience for your platform), so you just piss off the community. What is the net positive? Not just for Google, but for anyone? I don't think it's about lock in so much as no perceivable benefit for trying to get this particular thing off the ground ATM. I don't think anyone is going to succeed with locking someone in with IDE plugins, and i don't think anyone is trying (even MS). (I'll make the disclaimer that i actually could have changed this decision but chose not to and i'm even a card carrying member of the FSF)
  - ljm 8y ago
    Would that not also suggest poor leadership/stewardship? Open sourcing something shouldn't suddenly mean that a community turns up and takes over the project with unreasonable or out-of-scope demands. You can be open source without requesting contributions or building a tribe around it. You can be open source and say no to things you don't like: go ahead and fork and adapt it to your own needs.
    - 8y ago

KorematsuFred 8y ago

Part of the reason why some things are kept closed source is because of the quality of code itself that might hurt brand image. For things like IDE plugins it always makes businsess sense to make them fully open source if not from day 1.