Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#121

Post by zeveb »

josteink wrote: post #118
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL reduces developer freedom Does it?

> The GPL reduces developer freedom. Does it? The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down). Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users. You have got to keep these two roles clearly separated when thinking about licences, even though in lots of cases the actual users will be developer…

> The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down).

That begs the question of whether or not one has the right to limit one's users' freedom to use, modify & share code. I don't think that one does.

> Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users.

They certainly increase developer power, but power is not freedom; might does not make right.

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#122

Post by zeveb »

douche wrote: post #38
syshum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To translate if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer >MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical. This depends on the project I normally license my libraries, code I intend to be included in other software under BSD or MIT, but full developed software that is intended to be used as is gets GPL.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. How many people would have used jQuery, if it was GPL? Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Sure, you can get exemptions, but can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL? Trying to trace back and make arra…

> Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license.

Why would you want to release under any other sort of license? Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code?

> can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL

That sounds wonderful: an entire ecosystem of free software.

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#123

Post by zeveb »

douche wrote: post #92
mikegerwitz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are taking an incredibly harsh (and coming across as almost vengeful) position on the GPL advocating a position that misses the point of the GPL. Software that chooses a copyleft license like the GPL cares for freedom more than broad adoption of their software. I would never want you to help you create non-free software---that's antithetical to everything I stand for. Many feel that way. You say "trace back and m…

I'm really not trying to shit on the GPL and free software, or pooh-pooh any philosophy. You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source commercial software. That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it. I'm glad Microsoft is cognizant of the fact that they have legions of partners, vendors, and independent developers that have built their businesses on top of Microsoft…

> You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source commercial software. That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it.

What's the moral difference between writing closed-source commercial software and being a slave trader?

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#124

Post by idm »

I reached a similar conclusion regarding Microsoft, based upon my own analysis:

http://www.gh-impact.com/blog/the-most-influential-organizat...

Despite being a latecomer to GitHub, Microsoft has risen to become the 4th most influential organization on GitHub in a very short amount of time.

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#126

Post by josteink »

zeveb wrote: post #121
josteink wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GPL reduces developer freedom. Does it? The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down). Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users. You have got to keep these two roles clearly separated when thinking about licences, even though in lots of cases the actual users will be developer…

> The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down). That begs the question of whether or not one has the right to limit one's users' freedom to use, modify & share code. I don't think that one does. > Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users. They certainly increase developer power , b…

I'm just starting the technical consequences of the different licences.

You're not refuting anything I say, but instead debating the morality around different licence models. And that's clearly a different and subjective argument.

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#127

Post by WayneBro »

bad_user wrote: post #108
WayneBro wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. Linux would never have replaced Windows on desktop computers back then or ever. Anyway, the great majority of people never cared about Microsoft's behavior towards computer makers, Linux or Open Office. That's just politics. If I boycotted every company who played hard-ball politics, I would be living alone and naked in the woods. Your priorities are out of whack if you're railing against Microsoft but still liv…

Anti-trust laws and governments exist for a reason: such that "the majority of people" don't have to concern themselves with matters that affect them but for which they've got no competency. You've just made an appeal to popularity , an obvious fallacy. Microsoft killed BeOS and almost killed Apple through anti-competitive behavior. Whether Windows was superior, that's irrelevant to our discussion, because they engag…

> ...with matters that affect them...

I already said that this matter DID NOT affect them because the great majority of people would never have used Linux on their desktop to begin with. So your entire argument is invalid.

Furthermore, the anti-trust case against Microsoft surrounded Internet Explorer, not Linux.

> Microsoft killed BeOS...

Citation?

> ...and almost killed Apple...

Umm, Bill Gates saved Apple is more like it.

> If you boycotted every company who played dirty, that's called "voting with your wallet" and it works surprisingly well ;-)

Yes, but again....you're obviously not doing that because if you boycotted every company who played dirty you'd be living naked in the woods. If you just did it within the realm of technology, you'd be Richard Stallman. LOL

> My point is that Scott Hanselman's article is pure PR bullshit...

In your opinion... Of course he specifically says "I don't speak for Microsoft, I'm not a mouthpiece or a marketer. Sure, I promote the stuff I work on, because some of it is damn cool stuff. I'm a programmer with a blog who likes to speak on technology. But I am not my employer."

followed by

" I like the direction we're heading. I work here to fix stuff. Some folks complain, some tweet complaints, I'm here to fix it. If it was a lost cause, I'd quit, as I truly don't need the job that badly."

Anyway, I don't know why you care so much about that article. There are millions Microsoft fans out there that probably didn't even read it, who don't really care about your politics at all.

Enjoy your crusade though!

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#128

Post by WayneBro »

chha wrote: post #2

This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid

GPL is a cancer. That's why people vastly prefer something more like the MIT license these days.

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#129

Post by jackfoxy »

us0r wrote: post #80
Illniyar wrote: post #37

How is that calculated? I mean Microsoft only has 2561 members ( https://github.com/orgs/Microsoft/people ) , so it isn't how many microsoft members contribute to open source. Is it how many contributors their open source projects have? nope, FontAwesome has maybe 100 contributors to all of it's 5 projects but it's listed as having 9000+ contributors. From what I can gather it's mostly based on the number of people t…

Microsoft also has: https://github.com/azure https://github.com/OfficeDev https://github.com/mspnp https://github.com/dotnet https://github.com/aspnet https://github.com/powershell https://github.com/nuget - not sure this counts plus probable another 100 i'm not aware of.

Historically I believe F# was the first project Microsoft open sourced. I'm not sure the current incarnation of the project reflects the entire history, but the language has active community contributors, with Don Syme of MSR acting as benevolent dictator. https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/graphs/contributor...

Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub

#130

Post by dragonwriter »

josteink wrote: post #118
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL reduces developer freedom Does it?

> The GPL reduces developer freedom. Does it? The GPL increases the user's freedom by forcing developers to contribute back, ie limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down). Likewise, BSD and MIT type licences increase developer freedom at the cost of end users. You have got to keep these two roles clearly separated when thinking about licences, even though in lots of cases the actual users will be developer…

> The GPL increases the user's freedom

No, it doesn't. The GPL reduces the probability of the user being offered a non-Free derivative in addition to the original Free software and any Free derivatives, but does not increase the user's freedom.

Post reply on HN