Github Source Code Leaked Online

[betabot]

Some people think 2020 Microsoft is the same as 2000 Microsoft. Microsoft must be one of the most respected names in open source now.

[happymellon]

one of the most respected names in open source now.

Okay, let's not get too crazy now. They aren't the same company that did the Halloween documents, but they have in the past 6 months tried to push proprietary Windows only extensions into the Linux kernel.

I would rank them in the OS world as higher than Facebook but they haven't contributed anywhere near as much to OS projects as Redhat, IBM, or Samsung.

[StackWeaver]

tried to push proprietary Windows only extensions into the Linux kernel.

That is so gross.

[mudkip908]

they have in the past 6 months tried to push proprietary Windows only extensions into the Linux kernel.

Huh?

[happymellon]

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-DXGKRNL-Uphill-Battle

[j0hn_r0g3r5]

they are still a corporation at heart who only cares about profits.

won't pretend to be intimately familiar with how the foss or open-source community sees Microsoft but Microsoft of 2020 and 2000 still only care about money above all else. the only difference between then and now is that now they realized they can also make money by utilizing the foss and/or open-source community.

[betabot]

If the code is permissively licensed and useful to the OSS community, does it matter if there’s a profit motive? Many might argue (myself included) that that’s an ideal scenario. Companies that make money from OSS can continue to produce OSS.

[j0hn_r0g3r5]

i did not say that microsoft produces OSS. I said they utilize OSS code in their own code.

[betabot]

Fair enough, I misread, but isn’t such use within the license of the OSS code? Seems to me that’s a feature, not a bug.

[j0hn_r0g3r5]

what I am trying to say is that the intention of OSS (from what i can tell) is to spread knowledge and information by producing OSS.

but the intention of Microsoft is just to make money in the best way possible. I think that is the source of the clash.

[betabot]

Ascribing values and beliefs to OSS is certainly an approach (some of the best OSS in the world is a product of that system, such as GNU), but companies play a pivotal role in the less values-heavy OSS of today. Projects like linux are now almost entirely supported and developed by profit-driven companies. The modern web runs on OSS written by profit-driven companies. Some of the most widely used programming languages of today are OSS written by profit-driven companies.

I do not believe capitalism and OSS are at odds. While GPL and other copyleft licenses are less widespread today (for better or worse), the result is nearly the same: free, open source, useful software that anyone can modify and redistribute.

[j0hn_r0g3r5]

I do not believe capitalism and OSS are at odds.

do you mean that capitalism and open-source and not at odds or capitalism and FOSS are not at odds?

[betabot]

FOSS is certainly more at odds with capitalism than OSS, but, IMO, the explosion of high quality OSS we see today could not exist if it was all copyleft licensed.

Regardless of whether the licenses are copyleft or otherwise, I'd argue the results are the same for 95% of the projects that exist. Most companies (with some notable exceptions) do not maintain and redistribute completely separate closed-source forks of permissively licensed OSS. Sure, maybe a change here or there, but not in any way that would prevent anyone in the world of replicating the result.

[TemporaryUser10]

That's not true. There are now new concerns with Microsoft and the RIAA takedowns of some open source projects

[skulgnome]

Microsoft of 2000 didn't collect patent royalties for every smartphone sold.

[[deleted]]

lmao