11 ms·

Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even i

Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. If we're debating the OSS credentials of VSCode, it'll need to be based on the code already released (which makes it a pretty great OSS editor) and the current team of people the company has devoted to maintaining that OSS section of the product (also pretty great). Arguing that there are some extensions that are closed source and that's bad is a bit weird, especially when we can just make an open sourced extension that does the same thing.

readarticle 6y ago
Some additional salt in this particular wound is that the use of the Marketplace of VS Code extensions is also proprietarily licensed. So all these open source developers are shoving their extensions into a competitive advantage for one of the world's largest tech firms. What does this mean in practice? I guess it protects from the competition. Such as the VS Codium project which provides VS Code binaries without the proprietary parts. But also, as a consequence of this, without the Marketplace of extensions.
CiTyBear 6y ago
I don't think it says "Software not open-source is bad". But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. In my circles, developers could swear VSCode is fully open source without even knowing VSCodium. If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-in (just like the article says)
- GordonS 6y ago
  I know full well about VSCodium, but choose not to use it. For all intents and purposes, VSCode is open source - the source code it freely avaibale on github under an MIT license. AFAIK only the installer and some extensions are not open source - that plainly doesn't mean VSCode itself isn't open source. VSCode is a fantastic tool, and I'd prefer to use it directly from Microsoft. I am aware that there is telemetry, and as someone conscious of privacy concerns I've looked at what telemetry is sent - I'm satisfied it's anonymised sufficiently and benign enough not to affect my privacy. If the VSCode team really find this data useful, then I'm happy to provide it and help improve VSCode. I do however think that telemetry in VSCode should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    isn't that the same thing with chrome vs chromium? chrome as a whole is not Open Source or Free Software while chromium is. whether that matters to you is up to you. those who want to use Free Software or Open Source should use Chromium and VSCodium
    - GordonS 6y ago
      This divisive "us and them" stance is unnecessary, and doesn't help anyone. OSS and free software matters to me - so I use VSCode, which is OSS. Whether extensions are OSS or not is immaterial (the same extensions you can use with VSCodium!).
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        All FOSS is OSS, but not all OSS is FOSS.
        GordonS 6y ago
        Right, but VSCode is MIT licensed. The gripe in the article is about extensions not also being MIT licensed - an argument precisely nobody would be making if it wasn't Microsoft; as someone else here pointed out, you could make the same argument about SQLite, but nobody would.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        It’s important to note which code is MIT licensed, and which isn’t, as others have mentioned around components of the extension functionality itself. I’m not making the specific claims you are arguing against, and I don’t disagree with what you say, in any case. Just as in SQL, and in this case, these licenses matter. A feature matrix clarifying features and licenses would be mice. Also, it would be nice to have a fully FOSS mode for VS Code in its settings or config. It is a distinction with a difference.
      - em-bee 6y ago
- skohan 6y ago
  Yes this is exactly the risk: developers become dependent on the VSCode extension ecosystem, while thinking they are safely using only FOSS tools. This is the kind of double-speak which lets MS have the best of both worlds. From a marketing/developer relations perspective, developers think they are using open-source tools. But in actuality, developers are investing in workflows where MS is a critical link in the chain.
  - thisiswater 6y ago
    As the author puts it: "It makes me less certain that this isn't the Extend in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."
    - pydry 6y ago
      Other Microsoft OSS ventures makes me wonder if they haven't resurrected that policy too (e.g. the crippling slowness of azure mysql and azure postgres as compared to SQL server).
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Google has largely outpaced Microsoft on what concerns Extinguish.
      - easton 6y ago
        Can you give some examples? I haven’t seen Google close source something lately, except for Go’s package hosting server (which makes me inclined to believe you, I just haven’t heard of other instances).
        harrygeez 6y ago
        Google Play Services pops to mind
        lenkite 6y ago
        All the Google apps that used to be open once-upon-a-time in Android and whose evolved versions are all closed source now.
- dmortin 6y ago
  Most developers don't care they just want to get to job done. Many of them use IntelliJ, etc. which is not free software either. Those who care about using fee software already know about these things, because they check before starting to use a new software.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    There is a difference: intellij/Jetbrains don't claim to do OpenSource. Microsoft markets them as OpenSource player and Viscose as OpenSource IDE and if you don't look at the license terms you miss the part.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      Seems I can't edit the comment anymore. "Viscose" was supposed to be "Viscose". Thanks autocorrect :)
      - yencabulator 6y ago
        > "Viscose" was supposed to be "Viscose". Uhhh...
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        I give up. The phone rules over me.
  - electronstudio 6y ago
    They don’t brag about it as much as Microsoft do but IntelliJ Community Edition is free software. https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/...
    - TAForObvReasons 6y ago
      ... and open source (Apache 2.0 License)
- jasode 6y ago
  >But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. Honest question... Is SQLite also deceiving people about its "open source credentials" because the Encryption Extension is proprietary and costs $2000?[1] ... because as far as I can tell, most conversations do refer to SQLite as "open source" without always bringing up the encryption extension as a disclaimer in every online discussion. SQLite's creator, Richard Hipp, has a company selling a commercial license for the encryption add-on but it doesn't seem to tarnish the "open source" perception of SQLite. [1] https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1 https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1
  - est31 6y ago
    The main way SQLite is used around the world is as a library component of a larger application. The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA. Also, lots of people seem to value the proprietary extensions a lot more than people value the encryption extension of SQLite.
    - jasode 6y ago
      >The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA The blog author complained about "Live Share" as one example. As far as I can tell, "Live Share" is not in the builds one downloads from Microsoft's "Visual Studio Code" website: https://code.visualstudio.com/download https://code.visualstudio.com/download The Live Share feature is downloaded from a separate web page: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliveshare.vsliveshare-pack https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliv... This separation seems similar to SQLite Encryption Extension. Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The github page for "Visual Studio Code" prominently displays "Open Source" in its title: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode https://github.com/microsoft/vscode I'm willing to be convinced that it's a marketing deception and "open source" should be removed but so far, I haven't seen any precedent from other hybrid open/closed source projects justifying that.
- krn 6y ago
  > Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. VS Code is as open source as it claims to be. > If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-in Are there many software developers who are not aware that most open-source software can run proprietary extensions? I personally don't use any of Microsoft's services. Therefore, the entire claim that "the best parts of VS Code are proprietary" is completely false for me.
  - wolco 6y ago
    If you don't use Microsoft products the claim can't be taken as false. What in your own words do you know? Nothing.
    - Legogris 6y ago
      One can use plenty of Microsoft products while using none of their services. Which is an important distinction in this context.
- vezycash 6y ago
  Google does the same or even worse with "open source" Android and chrome.
  - lucideer 6y ago
    Exactly. And it's important to write articles like this about VSCode, Android, Chrome, and any others engaging in this (increasingly common) marketing approach.
    - est31 6y ago
      And users can help by actually using VSCodium, LineageOS, Linux distro Chromium builds, non-Xcode clang, etc. instead of the proprietary variants.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Which the large majority chooses not to, so there you have it, the open source dream.
        jefftk 6y ago
        On the other hand, Safari's WebKit being open source allowed Google to build Chrome on the same engine. Years later, Chrome's Blink engine being open source meant the same for Opera, Brave, and Edge. It is hard for individuals to run and maintain custom forks, but the benefits of open source in terms of preventing lock-in are substantial.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The same WebKit that now breaks the mobile Web and it being open source is completely irrelevant.
        jefftk 6y ago
        That Apple locks down iOS very tightly is a separate problem. WebKit on Mac continues to be usefully open source, and I believe performance improvements that Apple has made for Mac Safari have been incorporated into Firefox, Chrome, etc.
- kls 6y ago
  Given the fact that you have to download both extensions separately and intentionally from the VS Code binary. I would say that VS Code does indeed meet the technical definition and spirit of open source. I don't know a major open source IDE that does not have closed source and/or paid extensions that you can purchase/download. I find this argument kind of strange, neither of these extensions are part of VSCode proper, sure they are nice but to ding the base editor because MS did not hand these out is a bit of a stretch.
- stonemetal12 6y ago
  Is it though? On the VSCode site it says "Built on open source." I don't see anywhere it says "Is open source."
sentient_devil 6y ago
If me using a remote session on one of my servers requires microsoft servers, that itself is skeptical enough.
strombofulous 6y ago
How are they closed source? Aren't they javascript?
- nix23 6y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
  - benbristow 6y ago
    You can look at the source code on GitHub here and compile it yourself if you want... https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/tree/master/src https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/tree/master/src
    - danieldk 6y ago
      They are reacting to the parent who seems to have the misconception that all JavaScript is OSI opensource because you can read the source code.
    - nix23 6y ago
      I dont see what you mean...
- est31 6y ago
  The source code on Github is MIT licensed, but when you download VS code from the Microsoft website, it will present you with a non MIT EULA [0] that violates the four freedoms in multiple ways. So it's proprietary. [0]: https://code.visualstudio.com/license?lang=en https://code.visualstudio.com/license?lang=en
nyanpasu64 6y ago
Remote doesn't use Microsoft servers, it uses your servers. C# debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. C++ debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. Microsoft only broke these extensions on VSCodium to cripple open-source builds.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Or, you know, to actually make money from an editor they created, offer the core and tons of functionality for free and as FOSS, and spend millions employing people to work on, but adding some non-free value-added extensions... (Which even them, they offer free as in beer).
  - hvis 6y ago
    So how does it make them money?
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      By integrating well with Azure and by making their brand attractive to developers.
      - hvis 6y ago
        You don't need proprietary plugins for that, though. To make the brand attractive, free/open source is best.
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        The "bad" reason why they are closed: They have the open core, but with key parts closed it's boarder for others to build a solution on top of it, thus they can shovel more integrations with their services in. The "good" reason: Because relicensing of old software is hard and while they want to make it available (to strengthen their position in the developer community) See also my comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24048633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24048633
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dependenttypes 6y ago
The issue here is that Microsoft pretends to be FOSS-friendly while they are not. > Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic It is when you are going to potentially get into legal trouble for improving said software. Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect. Coldtea: Notepad++ is foss. > the same thing that happened to all those people using ... Just because you do not know about it it does not mean that it has not happened. In addition would you be willing to be the first person that this happens to? If they had nothing shady to hide they would release the source of said addons. (also, IntelliJ and Sublime are paid software, they are not closed source for the fun of it, unlike the subject of this topic)
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect. Yeah, the same thing that happened to all those people using XCode, Visual Studio proper, IntelliJ, Notepad++, Sublime Text, and so on.... Oh, wait, it hasn't...
jcelerier 6y ago
> Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. that is kinda debatable, considering that those are extensions to an LGPL-licensed core (Blink, the rendering engine used in electron) - see e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12...
- coldtea 6y ago
  Blink appears to has this license: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80bb94f76e2c140ed3bebcb304c26e9865/LICENSE https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    this is the license of google's additions - this does not negate the license of individual source code files: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80bb94f76e2c140ed3bebcb304c26e9865/Source/core/html/HTMLBaseElement.h https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  The LGPL parts here are dynamically linked, which is exactly what the LGPL was supposed to let you do.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    they definitely aren't. no libchromiumcontent.so to be seen anywhere. $ ls /opt/visual-studio-code/**/*.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libEGL.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libffmpeg.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libGLESv2.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libEGL.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libGLESv2.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libvk_swiftshader.so And running `strings` on the `code` binary obviously prints the name of classes covered by the LGPL.
smartmic 6y ago
It boils down to the (hostile?) takeover of the term "Open Source" by large, shareholder-value driven companies. Admittingly, Stallman has a point when he says "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" [1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

readarticle 6y ago

Some additional salt in this particular wound is that the use of the Marketplace of VS Code extensions is also proprietarily licensed. So all these open source developers are shoving their extensions into a competitive advantage for one of the world's largest tech firms. What does this mean in practice? I guess it protects from the competition. Such as the VS Codium project which provides VS Code binaries without the proprietary parts. But also, as a consequence of this, without the Marketplace of extensions.

CiTyBear 6y ago

I don't think it says "Software not open-source is bad". But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. In my circles, developers could swear VSCode is fully open source without even knowing VSCodium. If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-in (just like the article says)

GordonS 6y ago
I know full well about VSCodium, but choose not to use it. For all intents and purposes, VSCode is open source - the source code it freely avaibale on github under an MIT license. AFAIK only the installer and some extensions are not open source - that plainly doesn't mean VSCode itself isn't open source. VSCode is a fantastic tool, and I'd prefer to use it directly from Microsoft. I am aware that there is telemetry, and as someone conscious of privacy concerns I've looked at what telemetry is sent - I'm satisfied it's anonymised sufficiently and benign enough not to affect my privacy. If the VSCode team really find this data useful, then I'm happy to provide it and help improve VSCode. I do however think that telemetry in VSCode should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
- em-bee 6y ago
  isn't that the same thing with chrome vs chromium? chrome as a whole is not Open Source or Free Software while chromium is. whether that matters to you is up to you. those who want to use Free Software or Open Source should use Chromium and VSCodium
  - GordonS 6y ago
    This divisive "us and them" stance is unnecessary, and doesn't help anyone. OSS and free software matters to me - so I use VSCode, which is OSS. Whether extensions are OSS or not is immaterial (the same extensions you can use with VSCodium!).
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      All FOSS is OSS, but not all OSS is FOSS.
      - GordonS 6y ago
        Right, but VSCode is MIT licensed. The gripe in the article is about extensions not also being MIT licensed - an argument precisely nobody would be making if it wasn't Microsoft; as someone else here pointed out, you could make the same argument about SQLite, but nobody would.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        It’s important to note which code is MIT licensed, and which isn’t, as others have mentioned around components of the extension functionality itself. I’m not making the specific claims you are arguing against, and I don’t disagree with what you say, in any case. Just as in SQL, and in this case, these licenses matter. A feature matrix clarifying features and licenses would be mice. Also, it would be nice to have a fully FOSS mode for VS Code in its settings or config. It is a distinction with a difference.
    - em-bee 6y ago
skohan 6y ago
Yes this is exactly the risk: developers become dependent on the VSCode extension ecosystem, while thinking they are safely using only FOSS tools. This is the kind of double-speak which lets MS have the best of both worlds. From a marketing/developer relations perspective, developers think they are using open-source tools. But in actuality, developers are investing in workflows where MS is a critical link in the chain.
- thisiswater 6y ago
  As the author puts it: "It makes me less certain that this isn't the Extend in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."
  - pydry 6y ago
    Other Microsoft OSS ventures makes me wonder if they haven't resurrected that policy too (e.g. the crippling slowness of azure mysql and azure postgres as compared to SQL server).
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Google has largely outpaced Microsoft on what concerns Extinguish.
    - easton 6y ago
      Can you give some examples? I haven’t seen Google close source something lately, except for Go’s package hosting server (which makes me inclined to believe you, I just haven’t heard of other instances).
      - harrygeez 6y ago
        Google Play Services pops to mind
      - lenkite 6y ago
        All the Google apps that used to be open once-upon-a-time in Android and whose evolved versions are all closed source now.
dmortin 6y ago
Most developers don't care they just want to get to job done. Many of them use IntelliJ, etc. which is not free software either. Those who care about using fee software already know about these things, because they check before starting to use a new software.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  There is a difference: intellij/Jetbrains don't claim to do OpenSource. Microsoft markets them as OpenSource player and Viscose as OpenSource IDE and if you don't look at the license terms you miss the part.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    Seems I can't edit the comment anymore. "Viscose" was supposed to be "Viscose". Thanks autocorrect :)
    - yencabulator 6y ago
      > "Viscose" was supposed to be "Viscose". Uhhh...
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        I give up. The phone rules over me.
- electronstudio 6y ago
  They don’t brag about it as much as Microsoft do but IntelliJ Community Edition is free software. https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/...
  - TAForObvReasons 6y ago
    ... and open source (Apache 2.0 License)
jasode 6y ago
>But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. Honest question... Is SQLite also deceiving people about its "open source credentials" because the Encryption Extension is proprietary and costs $2000?[1] ... because as far as I can tell, most conversations do refer to SQLite as "open source" without always bringing up the encryption extension as a disclaimer in every online discussion. SQLite's creator, Richard Hipp, has a company selling a commercial license for the encryption add-on but it doesn't seem to tarnish the "open source" perception of SQLite. [1] https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1 https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1
- est31 6y ago
  The main way SQLite is used around the world is as a library component of a larger application. The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA. Also, lots of people seem to value the proprietary extensions a lot more than people value the encryption extension of SQLite.
  - jasode 6y ago
    >The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA The blog author complained about "Live Share" as one example. As far as I can tell, "Live Share" is not in the builds one downloads from Microsoft's "Visual Studio Code" website: https://code.visualstudio.com/download https://code.visualstudio.com/download The Live Share feature is downloaded from a separate web page: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliveshare.vsliveshare-pack https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliv... This separation seems similar to SQLite Encryption Extension. Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The github page for "Visual Studio Code" prominently displays "Open Source" in its title: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode https://github.com/microsoft/vscode I'm willing to be convinced that it's a marketing deception and "open source" should be removed but so far, I haven't seen any precedent from other hybrid open/closed source projects justifying that.
krn 6y ago
> Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. VS Code is as open source as it claims to be. > If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-in Are there many software developers who are not aware that most open-source software can run proprietary extensions? I personally don't use any of Microsoft's services. Therefore, the entire claim that "the best parts of VS Code are proprietary" is completely false for me.
- wolco 6y ago
  If you don't use Microsoft products the claim can't be taken as false. What in your own words do you know? Nothing.
  - Legogris 6y ago
    One can use plenty of Microsoft products while using none of their services. Which is an important distinction in this context.
vezycash 6y ago
Google does the same or even worse with "open source" Android and chrome.
- lucideer 6y ago
  Exactly. And it's important to write articles like this about VSCode, Android, Chrome, and any others engaging in this (increasingly common) marketing approach.
  - est31 6y ago
    And users can help by actually using VSCodium, LineageOS, Linux distro Chromium builds, non-Xcode clang, etc. instead of the proprietary variants.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Which the large majority chooses not to, so there you have it, the open source dream.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        On the other hand, Safari's WebKit being open source allowed Google to build Chrome on the same engine. Years later, Chrome's Blink engine being open source meant the same for Opera, Brave, and Edge. It is hard for individuals to run and maintain custom forks, but the benefits of open source in terms of preventing lock-in are substantial.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        The same WebKit that now breaks the mobile Web and it being open source is completely irrelevant.
        jefftk 6y ago
        That Apple locks down iOS very tightly is a separate problem. WebKit on Mac continues to be usefully open source, and I believe performance improvements that Apple has made for Mac Safari have been incorporated into Firefox, Chrome, etc.
kls 6y ago
Given the fact that you have to download both extensions separately and intentionally from the VS Code binary. I would say that VS Code does indeed meet the technical definition and spirit of open source. I don't know a major open source IDE that does not have closed source and/or paid extensions that you can purchase/download. I find this argument kind of strange, neither of these extensions are part of VSCode proper, sure they are nice but to ding the base editor because MS did not hand these out is a bit of a stretch.
stonemetal12 6y ago
Is it though? On the VSCode site it says "Built on open source." I don't see anywhere it says "Is open source."

sentient_devil 6y ago

If me using a remote session on one of my servers requires microsoft servers, that itself is skeptical enough.

strombofulous 6y ago

How are they closed source? Aren't they javascript?

nix23 6y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
- benbristow 6y ago
  You can look at the source code on GitHub here and compile it yourself if you want... https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/tree/master/src https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/tree/master/src
  - danieldk 6y ago
    They are reacting to the parent who seems to have the misconception that all JavaScript is OSI opensource because you can read the source code.
  - nix23 6y ago
    I dont see what you mean...
est31 6y ago
The source code on Github is MIT licensed, but when you download VS code from the Microsoft website, it will present you with a non MIT EULA [0] that violates the four freedoms in multiple ways. So it's proprietary. [0]: https://code.visualstudio.com/license?lang=en https://code.visualstudio.com/license?lang=en

nyanpasu64 6y ago

Remote doesn't use Microsoft servers, it uses your servers. C# debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. C++ debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. Microsoft only broke these extensions on VSCodium to cripple open-source builds.

coldtea 6y ago
Or, you know, to actually make money from an editor they created, offer the core and tons of functionality for free and as FOSS, and spend millions employing people to work on, but adding some non-free value-added extensions... (Which even them, they offer free as in beer).
- hvis 6y ago
  So how does it make them money?
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    By integrating well with Azure and by making their brand attractive to developers.
    - hvis 6y ago
      You don't need proprietary plugins for that, though. To make the brand attractive, free/open source is best.
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        The "bad" reason why they are closed: They have the open core, but with key parts closed it's boarder for others to build a solution on top of it, thus they can shovel more integrations with their services in. The "good" reason: Because relicensing of old software is hard and while they want to make it available (to strengthen their position in the developer community) See also my comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24048633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24048633

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dependenttypes 6y ago

The issue here is that Microsoft pretends to be FOSS-friendly while they are not. > Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic It is when you are going to potentially get into legal trouble for improving said software. Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect. Coldtea: Notepad++ is foss. > the same thing that happened to all those people using ... Just because you do not know about it it does not mean that it has not happened. In addition would you be willing to be the first person that this happens to? If they had nothing shady to hide they would release the source of said addons. (also, IntelliJ and Sublime are paid software, they are not closed source for the fun of it, unlike the subject of this topic)

coldtea 6y ago
>Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect. Yeah, the same thing that happened to all those people using XCode, Visual Studio proper, IntelliJ, Notepad++, Sublime Text, and so on.... Oh, wait, it hasn't...

jcelerier 6y ago

> Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. that is kinda debatable, considering that those are extensions to an LGPL-licensed core (Blink, the rendering engine used in electron) - see e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12...

coldtea 6y ago
Blink appears to has this license: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80bb94f76e2c140ed3bebcb304c26e9865/LICENSE https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...
- jcelerier 6y ago
  this is the license of google's additions - this does not negate the license of individual source code files: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80bb94f76e2c140ed3bebcb304c26e9865/Source/core/html/HTMLBaseElement.h https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...
Jasper_ 6y ago
The LGPL parts here are dynamically linked, which is exactly what the LGPL was supposed to let you do.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  they definitely aren't. no libchromiumcontent.so to be seen anywhere. $ ls /opt/visual-studio-code/**/*.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libEGL.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libffmpeg.so /opt/visual-studio-code/libGLESv2.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libEGL.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libGLESv2.so /opt/visual-studio-code/swiftshader/libvk_swiftshader.so And running `strings` on the `code` binary obviously prints the name of classes covered by the LGPL.

smartmic 6y ago

It boils down to the (hostile?) takeover of the term "Open Source" by large, shareholder-value driven companies. Admittingly, Stallman has a point when he says "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" [1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....