Microsoft has released their new Terminal application to GitHub, marketing it as another demonstration of their commitment to "open source". While the project is MIT licensed, did you know it is inextricably linked and dependent upon numerous proprietary SDK tools, headers, and the Visual C++ ATL.

Do not be fooled, see through the mirage of feigned support to undermine and sabotage the original ethics of the free software movement!

@gnupropaganda how serious should I take this? Agreed, <100% "open source" is not "open source". But with their past, is there no margin available? If 100% is expected, they'll never be able to do anything "right" foss-wise.

@yarmo @gnupropaganda I have open source projects with assets that use PSDs, are those no longer considered open-source now?

@cinebox the code in your project may be opensource, you may also have given the psd files too. But to change the content of those PSD files (depending on what the contributor wants to change) the contributor needs to purchase photoshop and use proprietary software. In a way you are placing a restriction for people who don't want to buy photoshop. it means to contribute to your project one has to purchase proprietary software.

@raghukamath even if photoshop is the only tool that serves the role I need?

@cinebox even if it is the only software that serves your need, it won't change the fact that to contribute to your project one needs a photoshop license.

@cinebox to clarify, I am not saying you personaly should not use photoshop, what I am saying is you shouldn't make it so that to contribute one needs to use photoshop. May be you can use open formats to keep the source files.

@gnupropaganda Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, as they did last century

@gnupropaganda I want to reply but it's one of those "we all know what I'm going to say" sort of replies

@gnupropaganda You knew it was a snake when you picked it up.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by... being sane. And making gradual, rational, step-by-step improvements.

@gnupropaganda the truth is... open source software doesn't cover the concept of "ethics" on its model.

So, what Microsoft does is not necessary sabotage, I've always thought that licenses like MIT and BSD "betray" free software communities, delivering the work of communities to companies that do not need to return the final product, even worse , making the final software a spyware (like Google Chrome)

It's therefore a broader problem.

@lorabe @gnupropaganda I actually prefer MIT, BSD, etc. Even for “free software” as opposed to “open source”.

Yeah, people can take my thing and use it in their proprietary program. I happen to be okay with that. It's not like they're taking away the original.

I want to say “here, take my code, do cool things”. Not “take my code, but you have to use this license for your project!”

Of course, I don't think proprietary software is evil, so I guess I'm not a True Free Software person. (:

@lorabe @gnupropaganda I guess my point is, I don't want to restrict my code to only people who like the particular license I've chosen. I want it to be useful to /everyone/.

That also neatly sidesteps the license incompatibility problem. (For the most part.)

@IceWolf @gnupropaganda IMO, that's a contradiction.

On the one hand, you want to share your work to the community without restrictions, which includes the type of license.

At the same time, the most important implementation of your work could potentially not be shared, since you gave them the freedom not to share the improvements of your original work to other people.

It's, the freedom to restrict other freedoms, don't you have a problem with that?

That's good, it's still a contradiction.

@lorabe @gnupropaganda

I don't really mind what restrictions people might put on modified versions of my code. I'd rather it be useful to everyone, including them, than only to people who like the particular license I've chosen.

They can only restrict their /modified/ version, not my version, so it's not like they're taking anything away. They're just not sharing like they could. IMO nobody's freedoms are being restricted here.

So no, I don't have a problem with that. (:

@lorabe @gnupropaganda I mean, sure, it's great when they give back. But whether to do that is their choice.

And sometimes companies do give back without being forced! Like Apple releasing Swift under the Apache License (and making the extra effort to port it to Linux, even).

@IceWolf @gnupropaganda that mentality explains a lot why all the BSD family has such a poor hardware support and doesn't compare with their cousin MacOS.

I understand what you mean, in my first post i said that permissive licenses "betray" the ethical nature of free software, i still think that this is true.

@lorabe @gnupropaganda Huh? How is BSD's hardware support a factor of its licensing model? And have you /seen/ NetBSD? I think it runs on pretty much everything. (:

I think BSD simply tends to focus more on server than desktop.

I've actually been messing around with an OpenBSD VM a little bit, and it looks wonderful as a server OS. Not so great for desktop, of course, but it wasn't designed for that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.