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

131–140 of 195 posts

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

#131

Post by ihsw »

eDameXxX wrote: post #98
us0r wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and many more but this is still not the entire list: https://github.com/Xamarin https://github.com/PowerBI https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge https://github.com/yammer https://github.com/OneDrive https://github.com/MicrosoftResearch https://github.com/LIS https://github.com/DynamicsCRM https://github.com/MicrosoftDX https://github.com/ms-iot https://github.com/microsoft-mobile https://github.com/thaliproject https://gi…

This is massive and as a die-hard Linux dude it fills me with great joy to see this. TypeScript, vscode, and dotnet/core are my bread and butter and I couldn't be happier.

I work in a .Net shop and witnessing everybody (slowly) move towards this middle-ground between .Net and Linux stacks is like watching history in the making.

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

#132

Post by ksk »

zeveb wrote: post #122
douche wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wonderfu…

> Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code?

Not everyone agrees that this is a right.

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

#134

Post by alpb »

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…

2561 members are the ones who made Microsoft org show up on their GitHub profile. By default, GitHub does not list your orgs on your profile. And many people are simply not aware of this, because your profile page looks different to you and others. You don't realize this until you visit your profile from incognito window or something.

The actual people count in https://github.com/orgs/Microsoft/people is twice as much. (I can see the actual number because I'm in the org.)

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

#135

Post by FT_intern »

arcticfox wrote: post #113
nojvek wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because Microsoft doesn't pay well and the benefits aren't as nice as goog or FB.

"doesn't pay well" - source? Remember to factor in insane California cost of living and taxes

MSFT has worse compensation progression and FB/Google Seattle locations pay more than MSFT. MSFT also doesn't have free lunch (as privileged as this sounds)

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

#136

Post by daveguy »

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…

> limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down)

Even with a more permissive license (MIT/BSD) the developer as a user never has the freedom to close down the original source code. Integrating that code into a proprietary offering does not close down the original code base. If there was only one copy of the code, then yes, integrating into proprietary software would close down that code. The original code can be copied indefinitely.

There is certainly a tradeoff. I prefer BSD/MIT to give developers the same freedom as users to use the software as they wish. If I was going to try to make money off the miscellaneous tools I open source I would prefer one that limits unfair competition (coopt and close). At the very least one that requires improvements to the direct code base to be given back (those licenses exist without full copyleft). That said, my go-to is MIT.

I also like license clauses that prevent use in a patented product. That way, regardless of how the code is used (even proprietary) the functionality can be reverse engineered and offered as a free product. Edit: Although embrace, extend, extinguish can be very effective with protocols because of the difficulty of reverse engineering edge cases.

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

#137

Post by moron4hire »

ksk wrote: post #132
zeveb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wonderfu…

> Why do you wish to restrict your users' right to use, modify & share code? Not everyone agrees that this is a right.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers.

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

#138

Post by moron4hire »

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 is not true at all and this reflects basically a willful ignorance of what the GPL actually says.

>> That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it.

Then you are bad at your job, because you do not know what the GPL means in practice.

How can it be that most of the most valuable technology companies in the world--Google, Facebook, Amazon, just to name a few--are built from the core-up on open source software?

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

#139

Post by moron4hire »

diamondlovesyou wrote: post #119
mikegerwitz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general GPL creates a lot of problems to which GPL supporters just plug their ears and mantra "if you were truly free you wouldn't have those problems". I'm not plugging my ears. I recognize it, and it's terribly unfortunate that one would ever be in such a situation, but the idea there is that the GPL would encourage the liberation of other code, and other platforms. Here's an example: http://clisp.cvs.sourcefo…

Except the GPL doesn't just encourage open sourcing works which use the GPL work as a dependency; it makes the open sourcing of any library/program/what-have-you a MANDATORY condition for use of the GPL work. This has nothing to due with modification of the GPL work; the condition is still in effect when no modifications, proprietary or otherwise, are required in the GPL work. I'm actually in agreement with Ballmer o…

That is completely incorrect. The GPL makes absolutely zero restriction on use. It's provisions only pertain to distribution.

If you are only using GPL'd software, there is no compulsion to release your software under the GPL. If you, on the other hand, are releasing a product to other people and you have found a piece of GPL'd software that provides enough value to you to bother including it in your project, then and only then are you compelled to open your source.

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

#140

Post by moron4hire »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #46
hjek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible-just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree lic…

You can't practically charge for distribution though - your sell it to one person, and they'll upload it to an FTP archive server.

Your inability to figure out a competent business model that also respects the rights of users is not the user's problem. You have no right to lock someone's computer down, to prevent them from using the copy of the software that you sold them, and the only way to guarantee that is to require the source to be open.

Look, it probably won't matter anyway. Probably nobody is going to use your software.

Post reply on HN