3 ms·
If pyright were GPL'd then MS would own their own pieces, but the contributions would be owned by others and that would prevent the relicensing you're talking a
by hajile 5y ago
If pyright were GPL'd then MS would own their own pieces, but the contributions would be owned by others and that would prevent the relicensing you're talking aobut.
MS could pay a dev team to write everything themselves, but it's a matter of cost. Given the choice between paying for a ground-up development for a tiny gain or using the open project, inertia would push toward the open project.
Finally, there's the question of trust.
Why does MS feel the need to lock these things down?
It's obvious now that "Open" was a hook. It killed off all the competitors like Atom or Brackets and even mostly killed off other editors like Sublime. The only question now is the final goal of their lock-in. The only real observation is that all of "the new MS that loves devs" was just more of the classic Microsoft we've known for decades.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If pyright were GPL'd then MS would own their own pieces, but the contributions would be owned by others So in your hypothetical, Microsoft not only uses the GPL instead of MIT outbound, but accepts contributions under the GPL instead of the CLA it uses for most MS open source project contributions, including pyright, inbound, etc.?
- hajile 5y agoYes. If they asked for people to sign over copyright for all contributions, they simply wouldn't get many takers because it would be transparent that the only reason to ask would be to close the source later.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If they asked for people to sign over copyright for all contributions, they simply wouldn't get many takers because it would be transparent that the only reason to ask would be to close the source later. How is that any less true when the outbound license is MIT, and, therefore, how is the fact that they get contributions with the CLA now not a firm disproof of that claim?
- dllthomas 5y agoMoreover, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- prirun 5y ago> It's obvious now that "Open" was a hook. It killed off all the competitors like Atom or Brackets and even mostly killed off other editors like Sublime. The only question now is the final goal of their lock-in. The only real observation is that all of "the new MS that loves devs" was just more of the classic Microsoft we've known for decades. There's never a question of Microsoft's goal. It is always to destroy your choice to use non-Microsoft products. They pour resources into a "free" product that I will admit is good. It has to be, to kill all competing products over many years. Then when there is no reasonable competing product, they switch it to a paid product. I can remember when Windows 3.1 was released. I did development on it at Ford, to emulate a vector graphics terminal. I remember when Office was bundled with Windows for free; now it is 1/3 of their revenue. I have seen Microsoft repeat this game over and over. History truly does repeat itself.