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

151–160 of 195 posts

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

#151

Post by mugsie »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #76
rubber_duck wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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…

I will give an example where the GPL hurts some projects:

I work on a OpenStack project that does DNS. We have plugable drivers for the different software out there - PowerDNS, Bind9, nsd, etc.

One of the people deploying our software wanted (or needed? - there was some weird legal / support issue) to plugin into Nominum.

Now, to even look at the API ref, or use the Nominum python lib, you need to have a support contract, and agree to not release them. If we were GPL, that user would not be able to use our project, but because we were Apache they could write an internal driver, and still have the same API as other OpenStack users.

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

#152

Post by shanselman »

WayneBro wrote: post #127
bad_user wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

:)

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

#153

Post by josteink »

daveguy wrote: post #136
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…

> 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…

> Even with a more permissive license (MIT/BSD) the developer as a user

You're trying to make it complex, but this is really simple.

GPL maximises end user freedom. BSD/MIT maximises developer freedom.

By conflating the two terms ("developer as a user") you are trying to make it seem like you can have it both ways at the same time.

But obviously and rationally there's no way for that to be possible.

When you as a user of product A decides to use your freedom and take that code to create product B, you become the developer of that product.

If product A was GPL licenced, you would be forced to provide your users with the same freedom you were granted. End user freedom preserved.

If it was MIT/BSD licenced, you as a developer could make your product closed source, and as a developer be free to take away freedoms from your end users.

Both are fine options, depending on your point of view. I'm not rating one against the other.

I just don't see how understanding these simple differences can at all be difficult.

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

#154

Post by RandomOpinion »

bad_user wrote: post #28
jdmoreira wrote: post #5

When I was a script kiddie back in the mid nineties Microsoft was this evil corporate empire that all the linux kids hated. Now I'm in my mid 30s and I respect them a lot and would definitely work for them. I guess we both have changed.

I'm not sure what changed about them. Do you think that dumping some code on GitHub is enough? I disagree. "Linux kids" hated Microsoft because of their dirty tactics, exemplified for example in the "Halloween documents" [1], which shows among other things how they sponsored the SCO lawsuits against Linux. "Linux kids" also hated Microsoft for how they always tried to subvert open standards, like for example the Open…

Nothing changed about Microsoft. Back then, MS's leadership was doing things that they thought would make them the most money and now MS's leadership are doing things that they think will make them the most money. Being "for" or "against" OSS or Linux or whatever doesn't even enter into the equation.

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

#155

Post by zeveb »

CJefferson wrote: post #146
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…

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.

> Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries.

The standard way to use GPL v2 is to use this verbiage:

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
If someone doesn't do that, I don't know what to say.

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

#156

Post by mikegerwitz »

mugsie wrote: post #151
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…

I will give an example where the GPL hurts some projects: I work on a OpenStack project that does DNS. We have plugable drivers for the different software out there - PowerDNS, Bind9, nsd, etc. One of the people deploying our software wanted (or needed? - there was some weird legal / support issue) to plugin into Nominum. Now, to even look at the API ref, or use the Nominum python lib, you need to have a support cont…

> Now, to even look at the API ref, or use the Nominum python lib, you need to have a support contract, and agree to not release them. If we were GPL, that user would not be able to use our project, but because we were Apache they could write an internal driver, and still have the same API as other OpenStack users.

I'm not sure if by "internal" you meant that they were only using it internally. If they're not distributing outside their organization, they have no obligations under the GPL.

Otherwise, yes, the GPL does not allow for distribution under an NDA, because it adds additional restrictions.

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

#157

Post by detaro »

zeveb wrote: post #155
CJefferson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Except, I work on GPL v2 systems, and we can't link to GPL v3 libraries. The standard way to use GPL v2 is to use this verbiage: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. If someone doesn't do that, I don't know what to…

That's the wrong direction. You can use v2 code with that sentence in the license in a v3 codebase, not vice-versa (unless you upgrade your codebase to v3 entirely, but since GPLv2 was explicitly mentioned that probably is not an option for whatever reason).

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

#158

Post by z3t4 »

daveguy wrote: post #101
rmc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a quite decent improvement from the era when Or the era of "Linux is a cancer" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...

Well, to be fair, he was trying to refer to the fact that GPL is viral (turning other licenses into its own). That is a valid critique of GPL (it reduces developer freedom) and that is why it has been in steady decline compared to more liberal licenses (as a percent of FOSS licenses).

while gpl does spread. It also protect the owner. With a more permissive license a bigger player can steal your work, user base and make it proparitary closed source. Why do u think M chose MIT instead of GPL ?

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

#159

Post by tracker1 »

arcticfox wrote: post #114
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.

I'm no huge fan of Microsoft but leading that list with Azure made me recall a nice experience I had with their devs. One of their APIs was missing something I needed so I created an issue on Github. Not only did the devs respond, they thanked me profusely for the input and made the (rather significant) change in days. I don't know if it's true or not, but I felt like their only user whenever I interacted with them (…

I had a similar experience with MS employees for an issue on a third party SQL driver using it with Azure SQL... very courteous, professional, and was included on some internal email chains to keep me informed. It did take a couple days, but the effort was very nice to say the least.

It was an Azure team member that spotted the bug and worked with some of the MS SQL guys to resolve the issue.

I can't speak for the larger organization, but will say that the Azure and .Net Core teams have been incredibly open and responsive. And with a huge amount of their devdiv stuff in Github, it doesn't surprise me they'd be one of the largest corporate contributors on Github.

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

#160

Post by ksk »

moron4hire wrote: post #137
ksk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>You have no right to tell people what to do with their own computers.

You seem confused. The discussion here is about copyright law and intellectual property licensing. Code is a series of 1s and 0s that can be duplicated at almost no cost. Me "possessing" it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.

Post reply on HN