6 ms·

So, this is basically what you would get when you download and build Visual Studio Code's source code. The name is probably a world play similar to Chrome -> C

So, this is basically what you would get when you download and build Visual Studio Code's source code. The name is probably a world play similar to Chrome -> Chromium. A mini rant, if I may: Microsoft's (and Google's, lol) practice of "open-sourcing" their products, but releasing a product which has "an added closed-source functionality" is dishonest at best and worthy of a giant lawsuit at worst.

bmitc 3y ago
What is dishonest about it, and what would you sue them for? I don't think you can sue for "open sourced a product and released it for free but it's not what I like".
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "open sourced a product and released it for free but it's not what I like" Open sourced a product and released a different product that has built-in tracking, is a walled garden for extensions and who knows what else. An elaborate fraud.
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Where is the fraud?
    - wheelerof4te 3y ago
      Let us imagine there is one chocolate product. The producer gives you two options to aquire that chocolate. First option is a pile of ingredients, a plain plastic wrapper and a recipe. You are obviously required to make the chocolate yourself, but what you get is the original chocolate as advocated by the company. Second option is a finished product that has a pretty decorated package and tastes a bit different than original chocolate. You can't quite put your finger on why, but at least you don't have to make it yourself! Maybe "fraud" is a bit too strong word. We could go with "consumer deceit" instead.
      - teo_zero 3y ago
        Sorry, but we face this every single day, with every single industrial food that include extra ingredients (e.g. preservatives) wrt to old granny's classic recipe and we don't call it "consumer deceit". It would be a fraud if the label on the product you buy omitted some ingredients, but it's not the case here: Microsoft doesn't claim its binaries are the result of a vanilla make on their source!
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    They don't claim to be entirely open, and open isn't a regulated term regardless.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      Being within the bounds of literal and legal correctness and acting like an asshole, it turns out, are not incompatible!
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        I don't see this as asshole behavior. They're giving away an overwhelming amount for free, which the community or a competitor can build upon at any time. This project being an example. For those who find the closed capabilities and extensions distasteful there is opportunity to make their own.
        stonogo 3y ago
        I've got several decades of experience with the things Microsoft has given away for free. I consider this to be an (entirely on-brand and consistent) asshole move, part of the same EEE cycle we've been through a dozen times with a dozen product lines. It's enough to keep me off even the open-source rebuild of the product.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry The point of this comment is that the telemetry is documented and able to be disabled.
    - rstat1 3y ago
      People don't really care about facts. Only the next thing to be outraged by.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    This is literally what the MIT license is for: it lets people take the source code, modify it, and then distribute that. As a paid product even, if that's what you want to do. This isn't fraud, this is literally MS going "here's the MIT licensed version, and here's our own variant of that, based on obeying that license." And then they go one step further and say "We're not going to tell you that only our product exists, we are explicitly telling you where to get the MIT licensed source code, which isn't even an MIT license requirement". This is exactly what good open source practices look like.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      It's a typical and completely compliant way to use the MIT license, but good open source practice? I don't think so. The MIT license permitting this sort of thing is why I and many others consider the MIT license to be a "cuck license": > A Cuck License is a permissive software license that that does not enforce the freedom of derivative works. This means that anyone can take software licensed under a Cuck License and turn it into proprietary software, effectively cucking the original author. > Examples of Cuck Licenses are the MIT license and BSD license. > Cuck License consequences: > There have been instances where developers's usage of Cuck Licenses has backfired. One notable example is Andrew Tanenbaum' MINIX, which got taken by Intel and turned into spyware called the Intel Management Engine. Tanenbaum went on to say: > "Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs. A company as big as Intel could obviously write its own OS if it had to." > However, Tanenbaum maintains that he made the correct choice licensing MINIX under the 3-clause BSD License. https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Cuck_license https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Cuck_license
      - bmitc 3y ago
        That's implying that GPL is the only good license?
        mcpackieh 3y ago
  - jzb 3y ago
    The source is available. You have the right to fork it. If there’s something in the propriety release that’s harmful, you might have a case - but all Microsoft is doing here is counting on people being willing to consume the builds rather than coming together to use the source code. Basically: Microsoft is betting that people care more about free as in beer than exercising software freedom. So far, they seem to be correct.
- croes 3y ago
  The part of hindering access to the market place and DRMing some extensions is the dishonest part.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    Their marketplace, not the marketplace. Their extensions. Microsoft's extensions for Microsoft's editor shared in Microsoft's marketplace. And if it's dishonest, where did they say otherwise?
    - croes 3y ago
      Microsoft's marketplace but definitely not all extensions are theirs. What is the reason that Codium can't access the extensions? That's like Edge wouldn't be allowed to load extensions from the Chrome store.
Matumio 3y ago
Pretty sure they use "open source" in a fair way here. Others are able to grab their sources and legally publish builds that are pretty much identical (up to the telemetry...). What you're looking for is the "anti-features" distinctions, like the F-Droid store does it. E.g. "This app depends on other non-free apps." or "Promotes or depends entirely on a non-free network service."
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > builds that are pretty much identical Not quite. Try running Pylance on a build of your own.
  - jraph 3y ago
    Not to mention that you are supposed not to use the official vscode extension repository if you don't use the official vscode build IIRC.
candiddevmike 3y ago
It's the open enshitification model
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  How so? If it remains consistently open core then I don't see it. They'd have to make the open part progressively worse.
  - hedora 3y ago
    It is a platform play, where the platform increasingly becomes incompatible with the open core stuff. The value of a lot of software comes from interoperability, not from the code itself. For instance, try running AOSP and 100% open source system libraries on your android phone for a month. You will find that you cannot perform basic financial transactions, like paying for parking, or hailing an uber/lyft, fast-charge your car, attend concerts without paying an extra fee, etc, etc. I don’t even want my phone to support any of the above crap, but I don’t get to dictate how the US economy is structured, so I have no choice but to need all that stuff to work.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    It is progressively worse now. What used to be useful extras are now considered essentials (see how many on this thread say they need the SSH, Docker or WSL extensions and can't use VSCodium). Plus they're now moving Python, .NET and other specific extensions towards closed source. Yeah, you can use the open source versions, but they don't have mindshare any more so source code written with one might not navigate/display as well with the other. Also, new features only land when MS has a closed source idea that can use it, and are locked to MS extensions only. Innovation for me, not for thee. (Copilot/Continue on Codespaces/Live Share/VS Code Web/...)
    - wheelerof4te 3y ago
      "Plus they're now moving Python, .NET and other specific extensions towards closed source." They are also adding Python support to Excel, which means that the layman now has a intuitive way to use a Python function to plot graphs inside their favorite workbook. In other words, now you no longer need those extra machine learning Python devs, when Bob the accountant can plot fancy graphs for you. Talk about extending an open source project just to incorporate it into the Borg that is closed-source Excel.
coliveira 3y ago
You're 100% correct. Google and Apple started this trend, and MS perfected it: just say you're creating "open source" products, but release a closed source version. These mega companies still benefit from the work of clueless software engineers who donate their time to the open source product, but what the mega corps deliver to end users is the closed source version.
- drcongo 3y ago
  Serious question - no snark just genuine ignorance, what products have Google and Apple done this with?
  - kiwijamo 3y ago
    Google - Android. Apple - Darwin, Webkit, etc.
  - Liquix 3y ago
    Apple released OS X/Darwin open source, but kept the moneymaking frameworks (cocoa, carbon) closed source. This generated positive PR while keeping the secret sauce needed to ship polished applications under lock and key Google released Android open source, but then made unlocking bootloaders and flashing devices as difficult as possible for laymen. So they get to point at AOSP and say "open source" but in practice the vast majority of users end up running proprietary builds with big G's telemetry baked in
    - dataangel 3y ago
      This is just incorrect regarding Google. The phones they actually make, the Pixel ones, have open bootloaders.
    - noman-land 3y ago
      Chromium also?
    - the_pwner224 3y ago
      Unlocking and flashing Androids is (in general) much easier today than it was 10 years ago, mostly due to Google's efforts with fastboot and other software infrastructure. Modern Pixels are really easy to hack on. > in practice the vast majority of users end up running proprietary builds with big G's telemetry baked in The vast majority of users are always going to do this, regardless of how easy it is to install a custom OS.
o1y32 3y ago
"worthy of a giant lawsuit" Wow, that's a bold claim. Unless vscode and other products are improperly using GPL-licensed or not following license requirements otherwise -- which I am not aware of -- Microsoft is doing nothing wrong here, just like countless other commercial companies that release proprietary software based on open source projects.
juanpicardo 3y ago
maybe you think this way because you assume the open source code is meant to be a product. I think they do it mostly to make it easier to build an ecosystem of developers. Plenty of companies do this (Adobe is another one). They release some basic part or engine of their product so developers can work with it without compromising their business.

bmitc 3y ago

What is dishonest about it, and what would you sue them for? I don't think you can sue for "open sourced a product and released it for free but it's not what I like".

wheelerof4te 3y ago
"open sourced a product and released it for free but it's not what I like" Open sourced a product and released a different product that has built-in tracking, is a walled garden for extensions and who knows what else. An elaborate fraud.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Where is the fraud?
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    Let us imagine there is one chocolate product. The producer gives you two options to aquire that chocolate. First option is a pile of ingredients, a plain plastic wrapper and a recipe. You are obviously required to make the chocolate yourself, but what you get is the original chocolate as advocated by the company. Second option is a finished product that has a pretty decorated package and tastes a bit different than original chocolate. You can't quite put your finger on why, but at least you don't have to make it yourself! Maybe "fraud" is a bit too strong word. We could go with "consumer deceit" instead.
    - teo_zero 3y ago
      Sorry, but we face this every single day, with every single industrial food that include extra ingredients (e.g. preservatives) wrt to old granny's classic recipe and we don't call it "consumer deceit". It would be a fraud if the label on the product you buy omitted some ingredients, but it's not the case here: Microsoft doesn't claim its binaries are the result of a vanilla make on their source!
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  They don't claim to be entirely open, and open isn't a regulated term regardless.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    Being within the bounds of literal and legal correctness and acting like an asshole, it turns out, are not incompatible!
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      I don't see this as asshole behavior. They're giving away an overwhelming amount for free, which the community or a competitor can build upon at any time. This project being an example. For those who find the closed capabilities and extensions distasteful there is opportunity to make their own.
      - stonogo 3y ago
        I've got several decades of experience with the things Microsoft has given away for free. I consider this to be an (entirely on-brand and consistent) asshole move, part of the same EEE cycle we've been through a dozen times with a dozen product lines. It's enough to keep me off even the open-source rebuild of the product.
- bmitc 3y ago
  https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry The point of this comment is that the telemetry is documented and able to be disabled.
  - rstat1 3y ago
    People don't really care about facts. Only the next thing to be outraged by.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  This is literally what the MIT license is for: it lets people take the source code, modify it, and then distribute that. As a paid product even, if that's what you want to do. This isn't fraud, this is literally MS going "here's the MIT licensed version, and here's our own variant of that, based on obeying that license." And then they go one step further and say "We're not going to tell you that only our product exists, we are explicitly telling you where to get the MIT licensed source code, which isn't even an MIT license requirement". This is exactly what good open source practices look like.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's a typical and completely compliant way to use the MIT license, but good open source practice? I don't think so. The MIT license permitting this sort of thing is why I and many others consider the MIT license to be a "cuck license": > A Cuck License is a permissive software license that that does not enforce the freedom of derivative works. This means that anyone can take software licensed under a Cuck License and turn it into proprietary software, effectively cucking the original author. > Examples of Cuck Licenses are the MIT license and BSD license. > Cuck License consequences: > There have been instances where developers's usage of Cuck Licenses has backfired. One notable example is Andrew Tanenbaum' MINIX, which got taken by Intel and turned into spyware called the Intel Management Engine. Tanenbaum went on to say: > "Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs. A company as big as Intel could obviously write its own OS if it had to." > However, Tanenbaum maintains that he made the correct choice licensing MINIX under the 3-clause BSD License. https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Cuck_license https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Cuck_license
    - bmitc 3y ago
      That's implying that GPL is the only good license?
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
- jzb 3y ago
  The source is available. You have the right to fork it. If there’s something in the propriety release that’s harmful, you might have a case - but all Microsoft is doing here is counting on people being willing to consume the builds rather than coming together to use the source code. Basically: Microsoft is betting that people care more about free as in beer than exercising software freedom. So far, they seem to be correct.
croes 3y ago
The part of hindering access to the market place and DRMing some extensions is the dishonest part.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  Their marketplace, not the marketplace. Their extensions. Microsoft's extensions for Microsoft's editor shared in Microsoft's marketplace. And if it's dishonest, where did they say otherwise?
  - croes 3y ago
    Microsoft's marketplace but definitely not all extensions are theirs. What is the reason that Codium can't access the extensions? That's like Edge wouldn't be allowed to load extensions from the Chrome store.

Matumio 3y ago

Pretty sure they use "open source" in a fair way here. Others are able to grab their sources and legally publish builds that are pretty much identical (up to the telemetry...). What you're looking for is the "anti-features" distinctions, like the F-Droid store does it. E.g. "This app depends on other non-free apps." or "Promotes or depends entirely on a non-free network service."

josephcsible 3y ago
> builds that are pretty much identical Not quite. Try running Pylance on a build of your own.
- jraph 3y ago
  Not to mention that you are supposed not to use the official vscode extension repository if you don't use the official vscode build IIRC.

candiddevmike 3y ago

It's the open enshitification model

paulryanrogers 3y ago
How so? If it remains consistently open core then I don't see it. They'd have to make the open part progressively worse.
- hedora 3y ago
  It is a platform play, where the platform increasingly becomes incompatible with the open core stuff. The value of a lot of software comes from interoperability, not from the code itself. For instance, try running AOSP and 100% open source system libraries on your android phone for a month. You will find that you cannot perform basic financial transactions, like paying for parking, or hailing an uber/lyft, fast-charge your car, attend concerts without paying an extra fee, etc, etc. I don’t even want my phone to support any of the above crap, but I don’t get to dictate how the US economy is structured, so I have no choice but to need all that stuff to work.
- lozenge 3y ago
  It is progressively worse now. What used to be useful extras are now considered essentials (see how many on this thread say they need the SSH, Docker or WSL extensions and can't use VSCodium). Plus they're now moving Python, .NET and other specific extensions towards closed source. Yeah, you can use the open source versions, but they don't have mindshare any more so source code written with one might not navigate/display as well with the other. Also, new features only land when MS has a closed source idea that can use it, and are locked to MS extensions only. Innovation for me, not for thee. (Copilot/Continue on Codespaces/Live Share/VS Code Web/...)
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "Plus they're now moving Python, .NET and other specific extensions towards closed source." They are also adding Python support to Excel, which means that the layman now has a intuitive way to use a Python function to plot graphs inside their favorite workbook. In other words, now you no longer need those extra machine learning Python devs, when Bob the accountant can plot fancy graphs for you. Talk about extending an open source project just to incorporate it into the Borg that is closed-source Excel.

coliveira 3y ago

You're 100% correct. Google and Apple started this trend, and MS perfected it: just say you're creating "open source" products, but release a closed source version. These mega companies still benefit from the work of clueless software engineers who donate their time to the open source product, but what the mega corps deliver to end users is the closed source version.

drcongo 3y ago
Serious question - no snark just genuine ignorance, what products have Google and Apple done this with?
- kiwijamo 3y ago
  Google - Android. Apple - Darwin, Webkit, etc.
- Liquix 3y ago
  Apple released OS X/Darwin open source, but kept the moneymaking frameworks (cocoa, carbon) closed source. This generated positive PR while keeping the secret sauce needed to ship polished applications under lock and key Google released Android open source, but then made unlocking bootloaders and flashing devices as difficult as possible for laymen. So they get to point at AOSP and say "open source" but in practice the vast majority of users end up running proprietary builds with big G's telemetry baked in
  - dataangel 3y ago
    This is just incorrect regarding Google. The phones they actually make, the Pixel ones, have open bootloaders.
  - noman-land 3y ago
    Chromium also?
  - the_pwner224 3y ago
    Unlocking and flashing Androids is (in general) much easier today than it was 10 years ago, mostly due to Google's efforts with fastboot and other software infrastructure. Modern Pixels are really easy to hack on. > in practice the vast majority of users end up running proprietary builds with big G's telemetry baked in The vast majority of users are always going to do this, regardless of how easy it is to install a custom OS.

o1y32 3y ago

"worthy of a giant lawsuit" Wow, that's a bold claim. Unless vscode and other products are improperly using GPL-licensed or not following license requirements otherwise -- which I am not aware of -- Microsoft is doing nothing wrong here, just like countless other commercial companies that release proprietary software based on open source projects.

juanpicardo 3y ago

maybe you think this way because you assume the open source code is meant to be a product. I think they do it mostly to make it easier to build an ecosystem of developers. Plenty of companies do this (Adobe is another one). They release some basic part or engine of their product so developers can work with it without compromising their business.