6 ms·

> but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me it's a gift and then demand payment Who's doing this? VS Code is free; Pylance is free

> but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me it's a gift and then demand payment Who's doing this? VS Code is free; Pylance is free, cppdbg is free, the C# suite is free. However the licences are clear; these extensions are closed source. VS Code's core editor functionality (Monaco, LSP, DAP, etc) is fully open, and has been regularly repurposed and re-branded by several other companies. I sincerely don't see the problem. If someone else wants to write their own extensions, they are free to; these extensions are Microsoft's IP and hence Microsoft is free to do what it wants with its IP.

CrimsonCape 2y ago
It's just disingenuous for Microsoft to say, for example, the cpptools extension is MIT licensed, which it is. https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools?tab=License-1-o... In reality, it's a MIT-licensed wrapper. The real license is also included in the repository, just not the top level github license. https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/blob/main/RuntimeLicenses/cpptools-LICENSE.txt https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/blob/main/Runti... The disingenuity is what you are condoning. The repo is superficially organized to appear open-source but is actually a minefield. Github will sometimes say "found other licenses"; the best Github can do is to "report" on the state of a repository; it's up to the community to decide on stricter tolerances for declaring something to be open-source, because as we see here, even a major corporation is willing to engage in subterfuge/exploitation. Saying something is "open source" provides material benefit: it creates attention, it attracts users, it creates community. Shouldn't a project be fully in-the-spirit of open source to benefit? There's plenty of case law around the word "free"; it's just too early for the phrase "open source" to have settled case law.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Where has microsoft stated the cpp extension is MIT licensed?
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    (assuming you haven’t somehow looked at a block of legal text, disregarded the opening paragraph, and assumed the rest of it somehow is to be interpreted in isolation?)

CrimsonCape 2y ago

It's just disingenuous for Microsoft to say, for example, the cpptools extension is MIT licensed, which it is. https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools?tab=License-1-o... In reality, it's a MIT-licensed wrapper. The real license is also included in the repository, just not the top level github license. https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/blob/main/RuntimeLicenses/cpptools-LICENSE.txt https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools/blob/main/Runti... The disingenuity is what you are condoning. The repo is superficially organized to appear open-source but is actually a minefield. Github will sometimes say "found other licenses"; the best Github can do is to "report" on the state of a repository; it's up to the community to decide on stricter tolerances for declaring something to be open-source, because as we see here, even a major corporation is willing to engage in subterfuge/exploitation. Saying something is "open source" provides material benefit: it creates attention, it attracts users, it creates community. Shouldn't a project be fully in-the-spirit of open source to benefit? There's plenty of case law around the word "free"; it's just too early for the phrase "open source" to have settled case law.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
Where has microsoft stated the cpp extension is MIT licensed?
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  (assuming you haven’t somehow looked at a block of legal text, disregarded the opening paragraph, and assumed the rest of it somehow is to be interpreted in isolation?)