4 ms·
Sounds like an apology. That's ok, I suppose. But I'd personally also love to see Microsoft pay Keivan for his contribution. It needn't be huge sums but somethi
by ak39 6y ago
Sounds like an apology. That's ok, I suppose. But I'd personally also love to see Microsoft pay Keivan for his contribution. It needn't be huge sums but something. No, not because it's the moral thing to do, but for the sake of Microsoft's GitHub and their open source community strategy itself. Keivan's project is exactly the type of projects Microsoft wants to encourage from their GitHub & open source endeavours for the eventual benefit of Microsoft. Paying Keivan something for his contribution to WinGet will really incentivise others to want to contribute to the ecosystem.
- jka 6y agoAlthough I'm sure you have good intentions, handing money to people after you make a mistake isn't always the best way to make amends (or to incentivize people).
- bzb3 6y agoThen Google should pay Oracle for using the Java API :')
- josefx 6y agoDid Google ask over Oracle engineers for job interviews just to pick their brains on Java?
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoIndeed. It's pretty funny when people pick their sides based on what companies are involved. They basically loosely implemented AppGet's API. AppGet, being permissively-licensed and open source, could've simply been forked or what-have-you anyways. There's nothing Keivan was actually holding back they had to interview him to get. That being said, I think it's likely a loss for Microsoft: Keivan obviously had thoughts they considered of value, and he probably would've been a solid hire. The PR hit from this probably costs them more than a year's salary for an engineer, so they probably should've considered the risk here. The fact that Microsoft engaged in a "dick move" is obvious, and for what? Something that feels like a tack-on side project by a couple of Microsoft engineers, that'll probably never graduate to mainstream adoption?