4 ms·
Elsewhere[0] Microsoft have redefined "Open Source" to not include the right to redistribute, or to host on a cloud service. So while there's nothing wrong her
by snthd 5y ago
Elsewhere[0] Microsoft have redefined "Open Source" to not include the right to redistribute, or to host on a cloud service.
So while there's nothing wrong here with calling an MIT project open souce, it's not inconsistent with their own definition, and useable as propaganda.
[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/services/developer-tools/data-studio/#documentation https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/services/developer-tools/d...
>Is Azure Data Studio open source?
>Yes, the source code for Azure Data Studio and its data providers is open source and available on GitHub. The source code for the front-end Azure Data Studio, which is based on Microsoft Visual Studio Code, is available under an end-user license agreement that provides rights to modify and use the software, but not to redistribute it or host it in a cloud service. The source code for the data providers is available under the MIT license.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIt’s still useful to have the source open for reference even if you can’t redistribute though.
- nojito 5y agoHow is the most common open source license not open source?
- samhw 5y agoI mean, whatever the truth may be, you're begging the question somewhat by calling it an 'open source license'.
- skylanh 5y agoBSDL, GPL, MIT License. This has been an argument for at least 25 years that I've been around this stuff.
- snthd 5y agoBoth sides of that argument agree that the right to redistribute is fundamental to FLOSS. Microsoft is defining their product, which you can't redistribute[0], as "Open Source". [0] https://github.com/microsoft/azuredatastudio/blob/4012f26976957f6f099ba4b4864a0ea1f558d8c5/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/microsoft/azuredatastudio/blob/4012f26976...