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

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.