2 ms·
Yeah, that's exactly what I had in mind. Microsoft had a very specific modus operandi in their bad old days, that was different then what they did with AppGet.
by macspoofing 6y ago
Yeah, that's exactly what I had in mind. Microsoft had a very specific modus operandi in their bad old days, that was different then what they did with AppGet. Here they basically acted like a regular big company trampling over a small company. You'd be hard-pressed to find any big company that hasn't done that. I remember, for example, when Google created 'Go' lang, they didn't care that there was an existing programming language named 'Go!'[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)#Conflict_with_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)#Con...
- servilio 6y agoThough I agree that this is not an example of EEE, it is still very similar to behaviour from the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...
- macspoofing 6y agoKind of. The difference is that AppGet is open source with no patents - so what they did was legal and, you might say, within ethical boundaries (except for the way they treated Keivan by stringing him along and then ghosting him) - though I could be persuaded that it isn't ethical for a trillion-dollar company to simply copy an existing open-source project, without some sort of voluntary compensation.