3 ms·
This. My first reaction was - why are we posting FUD here. Then you see it: they're switching from an OSS component to a new component, which *will not be open-
by radicalbyte 4y ago
This. My first reaction was - why are we posting FUD here. Then you see it: they're switching from an OSS component to a new component, which *will not be open-sourced*.
Retiring code with architectural changes is fine, it's normal, it happens everywhere. I don't have a problem with it. Only the replacement should be comparable in licence. Which this one isn't.
- capableweb 4y ago> Retiring code with architectural changes is fine, it's normal, it happens everywhere. I don't have a problem with it. Only the replacement should be comparable in licence. Which this one isn't. Not sure how you could perform the whole "extinguish" step without replacing any OSS/free/copyleft license with a closed-source version of it. "Extinguish" with OSS components would just be "embrace" or "extend", both of which Microsoft has already completed, so time to move on to the next step.