4 ms·
Licensing BS is why Open Source really became a thing, starting back in the bad old 90's when Steve Ballmer could kill with a stare. "Surprise! We're going to s
by gary_0 2y ago
Licensing BS is why Open Source really became a thing, starting back in the bad old 90's when Steve Ballmer could kill with a stare. "Surprise! We're going to start billing you based on how many keyboard keys your business uses." The mortal terror that someone upstream of your business might Alter The Deal (Pray We Don't Alter It Further) is why a lot of people are totally uninterested in any software that isn't MIT/BSD/Apache.
And that's also why if something that was MIT/BSD/Apache changes licenses, some developers will start gnawing off their leg before the trap even springs shut.
- neonsunset 2y agoI wonder if this is enough to make the larger dev community to finally realize that .NET is more open-source than Java ecosystem?
- jcotton42 2y ago(Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft, though not on .NET) In defense of Java, the canonical JRE/JDK implementation has been OpenJDK for quite some time now, and there are many non-Oracle spins of it. As for .NET, while it is currently good and I personally enjoy it, I'm a little wary on it too. Unlike with Java, where decision making is distributed in some fashion (as far as I can tell), Microsoft has retained nearly total control of .NET, and key parts of the ecosystem like the debugger are still under non-OSS licensing terms.
- neonsunset 2y agoThis is unfortunate, but I hope more interactions with teams that work on JIT and Roslyn would help to change this opinion.
- kaba0 2y agoSince when? OpenJDK is 100% open-source, with the same license as the Linux kernel. Besides, the standard itself is also open-source and it has multiple, independent implementations.