4 ms·

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

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
    No, any copyleft license is a better open source license. In fact, proprietary licenses are better as well; with MIT or BSD licenses you are writing code that a corporation will make proprietary, effectively writing proprietary code for them, except you don't get paid for it. It would be better to use a proprietary license and get paid than to use the BSD/MIT license, have your code turned into that same proprietary product, and not even get paid for it. Even giving your code to the public domain is better than an MIT or BSD license; corporations will still be able to make it proprietary but at least it clears the air around the 'interesting question' of mixing MIT/BSD code into a copyleft project and distributing the whole lot under a copyleft license.
    - CrendKing 3y ago
      That's pretty naive. If we are talking about individual developers, big companies like Microsoft can blatantly use your GPL code in their proprietary code and you will have no money to fight them in court anyways. If it's big company deliberately choosing MIT/BSD for their open source project, they don't need your lecture. They have their own lawyers to tell them what license benefit the most.
    - debugnik 3y ago
      > Even giving your code to the public domain is better than an MIT or BSD license Maybe in the US, but much of the world doesn't recognise waving away all author rights voluntarily. The closest thing to worldwide public domain is probably the Creative Commons Zero licence.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        Pretty much only corporations get themselves in a twist over that technicality, so what's the problem? Community FOSS projects don't worry about buying a license to SQLite, but the corporations with their lawyers do. This makes public domain even better. I'm serious, how many German individuals do you think would refuse to install sqlite on their personal computer because they lack a technically valid license for it? A few such weirdos doubtlessly exist but you can safely ignore them.
- o1y32 3y ago
  You can have this rant as you please but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is following the what the license requires and did nothing wrong.
- uw_rob 3y ago
  Quality contribution to the collective knowledge of humanity by the installgentoo wiki.
- Shikadi 3y ago
  What if I want to use a cuck license?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Who's stopping you?
- teo_zero 3y ago
  Ok, the MIT license can backfire and damage the author. But it doesn't damage those who receive the software. So why do you resent Microsoft releasing their own software with the MIT license? They expose themselves to the risk that someone else takes their code, adds some extra feature and sells it for a profit. Microsoft acts against its own interests, so what's dishonest in this?

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
  No, any copyleft license is a better open source license. In fact, proprietary licenses are better as well; with MIT or BSD licenses you are writing code that a corporation will make proprietary, effectively writing proprietary code for them, except you don't get paid for it. It would be better to use a proprietary license and get paid than to use the BSD/MIT license, have your code turned into that same proprietary product, and not even get paid for it. Even giving your code to the public domain is better than an MIT or BSD license; corporations will still be able to make it proprietary but at least it clears the air around the 'interesting question' of mixing MIT/BSD code into a copyleft project and distributing the whole lot under a copyleft license.
  - CrendKing 3y ago
    That's pretty naive. If we are talking about individual developers, big companies like Microsoft can blatantly use your GPL code in their proprietary code and you will have no money to fight them in court anyways. If it's big company deliberately choosing MIT/BSD for their open source project, they don't need your lecture. They have their own lawyers to tell them what license benefit the most.
  - debugnik 3y ago
    > Even giving your code to the public domain is better than an MIT or BSD license Maybe in the US, but much of the world doesn't recognise waving away all author rights voluntarily. The closest thing to worldwide public domain is probably the Creative Commons Zero licence.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Pretty much only corporations get themselves in a twist over that technicality, so what's the problem? Community FOSS projects don't worry about buying a license to SQLite, but the corporations with their lawyers do. This makes public domain even better. I'm serious, how many German individuals do you think would refuse to install sqlite on their personal computer because they lack a technically valid license for it? A few such weirdos doubtlessly exist but you can safely ignore them.
o1y32 3y ago
You can have this rant as you please but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is following the what the license requires and did nothing wrong.
uw_rob 3y ago
Quality contribution to the collective knowledge of humanity by the installgentoo wiki.
Shikadi 3y ago
What if I want to use a cuck license?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Who's stopping you?
teo_zero 3y ago
Ok, the MIT license can backfire and damage the author. But it doesn't damage those who receive the software. So why do you resent Microsoft releasing their own software with the MIT license? They expose themselves to the risk that someone else takes their code, adds some extra feature and sells it for a profit. Microsoft acts against its own interests, so what's dishonest in this?