Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes.
Unless you count android as linux.
Because Samsung isn't evil. Yeah, the cell phone manufacturers and carriers are paragons of virtue.
Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
141–150 of 195 posts
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#142Earlier 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.
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...
The WiX toolset is Microsoft's first open-sourced project: https://github.com/wixtoolset
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#143Earlier 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…
moron4hire is correct.
If you are not distributing the software personally or outside your organization, the GPL does not apply to you. If what you are doing does not constitute a derivative work, then your software is also not affected by the GPL: if you're invoking GNU grep in your program, for example, your program does not need to be licensed under a GPL-compatible license.
For clarification, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#144Earlier 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…
If you're a lone developer or small team and you're releasing your code under anything other than a strong copyleft license, you're leaving yourself open to the Joyents of the world to abscond with what you've made and build their business with nothing more than an attaboy to you. I would much rather nobody made money off of my code than somebody else while I still struggle. At least the Mozillas and Googles of the w…
Perhaps you could form a community of like-minded developers. Everyone pools their resources together, contributing to the pool according to his ability, and each person shares those resources according to his need. That way, nobody will be able to make money while you struggle and go without.
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#145Earlier 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.
>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 That's bullshit - GPL requires you to open source your derived work as well - which plenty of people have a problem with commercially - it doesn't mean you don't want to contribute anything (quoting you) back. Even with the LGPL there are scenarios where sharing your code is not…
GPL was never intended for commercial use, in fact it was meant in a minor way to deter the method of business to simply acquire work and to redistribute it as their own through minor changes. Its major effect was for the sharing of code on a free and OSS code base made by the freetime of many, many developers and hobbyists.
Even if Microsoft, big business and ivy league succeed in subverting the software architecture and environment built on the GPL license, hobbyists and developers will still continue developing on it (GPL code) on their free time.
(tldr; commercialization was never a real priority for GPL licensed software. it was the continued community sharing of works through licensed protected open source.)
edit: some developers are just in it for the love of money like m$, others are just in it for love of the craft.
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#146Earlier 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…
Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. No other license I've worked with has this incompatiblity problem.
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#147Earlier 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…
If you're a lone developer or small team and you're releasing your code under anything other than a strong copyleft license, you're leaving yourself open to the Joyents of the world to abscond with what you've made and build their business with nothing more than an attaboy to you. I would much rather nobody made money off of my code than somebody else while I still struggle. At least the Mozillas and Googles of the w…
Nobody can "abscond" with what you've made. It's always yours, it's always accessible to you, and you can always make it better.
Yes, if someone else comes and extends your work and eclipses your production, they're able to decide what to do with it as they want. That's the key point of being open: Letting people do what they want with it.
If anything, I'd contest the claim that copyleft can be considered open source any more than a license that lets you look at the source but doesn't let you modify it. Copyleft controls the source and forces your views on people who want to use it.
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#148Ballmer 2005: Let's kick open source's ass
(Many years of confusion, a realization that no company has the engineering chops to pull off such a feat, stagnant stock price, CEO change..)
Nadella 2015: Let's kiss open source's ass
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't practically charge for distribution though - your sell it to one person, and they'll upload it to an FTP archive server.
The same is true of literally every piece of software ever distributed regardless of license.
False. Because then you can sue that person for the damages incurred by their violation of the license.
Re: Microsoft is now the leading company for open source contributions on GitHub
#150This 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.
Yes. If you're the original copyright holder, you only give others cancer with the GPL. As the the copyright holder, you are licensing your code to others and as such, you subject yourself to whatever terms you want. But those who accept the terms of your copyleft license are bound to all the cancerous viral terms you set.
As a user, I prefer licenses like MIT that just give the code away with some reasonable strings attached. As a pip-squeak creator, I have to admit the copyleft licenses are attractive - the more viral and toxic (like AGPL), the better! I like being able to show off my clean and valuable code and have some reasonable expectation that no big corporation will rip me off. But then, universities and hobbyists will have full run of my code and that suits me fine.
Am I greedy? Am I stingy to think of my code this way? Should I be happy that anyone would see fit to use my code and thus maximize that chance by licensing with MIT? Or is no value ever generated with all the codes being completely free and open? I wrestle with this.