6 ms·

I don't see how it's worse? https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/blob/main/LICENSE It's MIT licensed?

Alupis 1y ago
Microsoft has a habit of "fake" open source. Particularly on Github. By "fake", I mean Microsoft largely treats their Open Source codebases like they are closed-source, in-house proprietary codebases that they happen to let members of the public look at. They'll accept a PR once in a while, but mostly it appears Issues and PR's are used as a free alternative to UserVoice. Every decision is made behind closed doors (probably a MS Teams call actually), and you'll notice how top-heavy their staff is on these projects (half a dozen employees with "Manager" in their title on any given repo). Beggars can't be choosers, and I'm glad they are dipping their toes into the FOSS water... but I don't really get FOSS vibes from their projects on Github.
- neonsunset 1y ago
  Garnet has a discord server and has been actively accepting community PRs, so I don’t know what kind of nonsense you are on about. What is it with .NET that compels you to lie? Also FOSS and open contribution are different things, as sibling comment notes.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cess11 1y ago
    MIT license is not FOSS, it's OSS at best.
    - neonsunset 1y ago
      MIT is one of the least restrictive licenses. If you think otherwise, I suggest checking if there's any aluminium foil on your head.
      - Nab443 1y ago
        As a end user, I find it quite restrictive. There might be some software I won't be able to fork/modify because they were MIT. I'm not the owner of the software anymore.
        neonsunset 1y ago
        "The MIT License (MIT) Copyright © 2025 <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons..." https://mit-license.org https://mit-license.org
        pabs3 1y ago
        The MIT license always allows you to fork/modify the project. You wouldn't be the copyright owner of the existing code in your fork, but you could be the owner of the project, and the copyright owner of any new code you add.
      - cess11 1y ago
        Free software is licensed in a way that protects your freedom. MIT license does not. Are you actually unaware of this? If so, why? Is it age or have you been sheltered somehow?
        throwaway66112 1y ago
        Free software is software that you are free to use or modify however you want.
        cess11 1y ago
        That's too vague. Free software is software you can't take and then modify and keep your modifications hidden or proprietary, thus depriving your users and the community of access to these changes. MIT license allows this, hence it's not a free software license. Because very large corporations don't like freedom they've poisoned the discourse around software freedom and launched PR campaigns trying to substitute talk about freedom with talk about openness or open source. To some extent they've succeeded, as evidenced by the chatter about it in this thread.
- KolmogorovComp 1y ago
  You’re confusing open source and open to contribution. Is SQLite not open-source?
  - tough 1y ago
    Does SQLite try to embrace, extend, and extinguish their competitors?
    - atonse 1y ago
      Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is from an era where Open Source wasn't the default for infrastructure. I don't know how you can extinguish something that's MIT licensed and has a million copies around the world.
      - tough 1y ago
        I've read at least several stories from this era like AppGet's https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22 https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22 I wouldn't trust Microsoft near my open source code base in 3 centuries They can extinguish it by just stealing all the code, and using their bigger marketplace advantage to become the defacto standard.
        Alupis 1y ago
        I'm fairly impressed Microsoft managed not to name their Redis competitor "Cache", just to pollute the keyspace like they do with so many of their other products.
        tough 1y ago
        LMAO they're so evil its even mildly funny
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - 1y ago
- munchler 1y ago
  How is that "fake"? There's no requirement that an open source project take contributions from outsiders at all.
- justin66 1y ago
  This notion that open source projects aren't really open source unless they welcome all contributions is one of the dumber ideas in the world.
  - glenngillen 1y ago
    Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"
    - Alupis 1y ago
      > source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source. If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should be able to fix it and contribute that back upstream so everyone benefits. That's my way of "paying back" and helping the community. Projects that reject contributions, or make contributing difficult are not in the spirit of open source, even if they are technically open source via their license. That's what I call "fake" open source - you want the positive image of being Open Source only.
      - toast0 1y ago
        > There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source. I mean, you're not demanding someone else make the changes. You're only demanding that they engage and build a community around their project and all that entails. As long as the license is reasonable, anybody else could pick up the project and do the community building around it. Apache HTTP Server developed around community patches to NCSA httpd. I don't think hitch (from the people who brought you Varnish) is well know, but it started as stud with community patches. If something like this takes off, the originator will either start taking the community patches too, or not; it's their choice. In the meantime, as a user, I get the benefit of whatever changes the origin provides and I can patch it as I want, and fix up problems that I see. That works for code dump open source and community open source,.
- dharmab 1y ago
  I make an open source, MIT licensed piece of software. I don't accept unsolicited contributions, but I document that people are free to fork the code and provide instructions on how to develop, test and build on your machine. Am I "fake open source"?
  - Alupis 1y ago
    In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted. In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source. That's not to say you are required to accept all contributions - I'm saying you should be open to contributions that A) save you time B) enhance the codebase or C) fix confirmed bugs. In Microsoft's case - I don't see a lot of that going on. I see lots of Issues (bug reports), some PR's, but mostly opaque decision making, and complete silence on things the Corporate side of Microsoft doesn't want to comment on yet. Which is the beef - it's a corporate project run like it's proprietary but you can go look at the code. Again, better than nothing, but it's not really what I consider true open source.
    - neongreen 1y ago
      I have the same feeling. I got used to infrastructure being run as a democracy, not merely “source available under GPL/BSD/MIT”. (It’s a big thing to want, sure, but I don’t mind wanting big things.)
    - krab 1y ago
      Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it? I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself. But why would accepting contributions be required?
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  Open source does not mean you accept contributions from others. It means that the source code is available, and that people are free to take it and modify it themselves. You are using a definition which is... not exactly incorrect, because definitions are what they are, but certainly not what everyone else uses.
ipaddr 1y ago
What stops them from doing the exact same thing

Alupis 1y ago

Microsoft has a habit of "fake" open source. Particularly on Github. By "fake", I mean Microsoft largely treats their Open Source codebases like they are closed-source, in-house proprietary codebases that they happen to let members of the public look at. They'll accept a PR once in a while, but mostly it appears Issues and PR's are used as a free alternative to UserVoice. Every decision is made behind closed doors (probably a MS Teams call actually), and you'll notice how top-heavy their staff is on these projects (half a dozen employees with "Manager" in their title on any given repo). Beggars can't be choosers, and I'm glad they are dipping their toes into the FOSS water... but I don't really get FOSS vibes from their projects on Github.

neonsunset 1y ago
Garnet has a discord server and has been actively accepting community PRs, so I don’t know what kind of nonsense you are on about. What is it with .NET that compels you to lie? Also FOSS and open contribution are different things, as sibling comment notes.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cess11 1y ago
  MIT license is not FOSS, it's OSS at best.
  - neonsunset 1y ago
    MIT is one of the least restrictive licenses. If you think otherwise, I suggest checking if there's any aluminium foil on your head.
    - Nab443 1y ago
      As a end user, I find it quite restrictive. There might be some software I won't be able to fork/modify because they were MIT. I'm not the owner of the software anymore.
      - neonsunset 1y ago
        "The MIT License (MIT) Copyright © 2025 <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons..." https://mit-license.org https://mit-license.org
      - pabs3 1y ago
        The MIT license always allows you to fork/modify the project. You wouldn't be the copyright owner of the existing code in your fork, but you could be the owner of the project, and the copyright owner of any new code you add.
    - cess11 1y ago
      Free software is licensed in a way that protects your freedom. MIT license does not. Are you actually unaware of this? If so, why? Is it age or have you been sheltered somehow?
      - throwaway66112 1y ago
        Free software is software that you are free to use or modify however you want.
        cess11 1y ago
        That's too vague. Free software is software you can't take and then modify and keep your modifications hidden or proprietary, thus depriving your users and the community of access to these changes. MIT license allows this, hence it's not a free software license. Because very large corporations don't like freedom they've poisoned the discourse around software freedom and launched PR campaigns trying to substitute talk about freedom with talk about openness or open source. To some extent they've succeeded, as evidenced by the chatter about it in this thread.
KolmogorovComp 1y ago
You’re confusing open source and open to contribution. Is SQLite not open-source?
- tough 1y ago
  Does SQLite try to embrace, extend, and extinguish their competitors?
  - atonse 1y ago
    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is from an era where Open Source wasn't the default for infrastructure. I don't know how you can extinguish something that's MIT licensed and has a million copies around the world.
    - tough 1y ago
      I've read at least several stories from this era like AppGet's https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22 https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22 I wouldn't trust Microsoft near my open source code base in 3 centuries They can extinguish it by just stealing all the code, and using their bigger marketplace advantage to become the defacto standard.
      - Alupis 1y ago
        I'm fairly impressed Microsoft managed not to name their Redis competitor "Cache", just to pollute the keyspace like they do with so many of their other products.
        tough 1y ago
        LMAO they're so evil its even mildly funny
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - 1y ago
munchler 1y ago
How is that "fake"? There's no requirement that an open source project take contributions from outsiders at all.
justin66 1y ago
This notion that open source projects aren't really open source unless they welcome all contributions is one of the dumber ideas in the world.
- glenngillen 1y ago
  Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"
  - Alupis 1y ago
    > source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source. If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should be able to fix it and contribute that back upstream so everyone benefits. That's my way of "paying back" and helping the community. Projects that reject contributions, or make contributing difficult are not in the spirit of open source, even if they are technically open source via their license. That's what I call "fake" open source - you want the positive image of being Open Source only.
    - toast0 1y ago
      > There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source. I mean, you're not demanding someone else make the changes. You're only demanding that they engage and build a community around their project and all that entails. As long as the license is reasonable, anybody else could pick up the project and do the community building around it. Apache HTTP Server developed around community patches to NCSA httpd. I don't think hitch (from the people who brought you Varnish) is well know, but it started as stud with community patches. If something like this takes off, the originator will either start taking the community patches too, or not; it's their choice. In the meantime, as a user, I get the benefit of whatever changes the origin provides and I can patch it as I want, and fix up problems that I see. That works for code dump open source and community open source,.
dharmab 1y ago
I make an open source, MIT licensed piece of software. I don't accept unsolicited contributions, but I document that people are free to fork the code and provide instructions on how to develop, test and build on your machine. Am I "fake open source"?
- Alupis 1y ago
  In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted. In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source. That's not to say you are required to accept all contributions - I'm saying you should be open to contributions that A) save you time B) enhance the codebase or C) fix confirmed bugs. In Microsoft's case - I don't see a lot of that going on. I see lots of Issues (bug reports), some PR's, but mostly opaque decision making, and complete silence on things the Corporate side of Microsoft doesn't want to comment on yet. Which is the beef - it's a corporate project run like it's proprietary but you can go look at the code. Again, better than nothing, but it's not really what I consider true open source.
  - neongreen 1y ago
    I have the same feeling. I got used to infrastructure being run as a democracy, not merely “source available under GPL/BSD/MIT”. (It’s a big thing to want, sure, but I don’t mind wanting big things.)
  - krab 1y ago
    Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it? I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself. But why would accepting contributions be required?
bigstrat2003 1y ago
Open source does not mean you accept contributions from others. It means that the source code is available, and that people are free to take it and modify it themselves. You are using a definition which is... not exactly incorrect, because definitions are what they are, but certainly not what everyone else uses.

ipaddr 1y ago

What stops them from doing the exact same thing