Wow, I get really frustrated when I see FOSS communities falling for Microsoft's "pro open source" PR spin - note, they never say anything positive about Copyleft (the "F" in #FOSS). They are no friends of FOSS - they're a parasite. Microsoft loves OSS like a tapeworm loves a healthy digestive system - exploiting what others produce for their own (proprietary) self-interest.
@lightweight MsPL has a clause added specifically and only to make it incompatible with the GPL and related licenses.
When I was doing FLOSS activism back in the day, I had a meeting with some "FLOSS Evangelist" from Microsoft, they were pushing hard the bullcrap of "FLOSS-friendly" MS. So when they asked what can they do to make the FLOSS community trust them more, I said "remove that clause".
The guy got *actually* offended. How dare I suggest such a thing?!
@rysiek yes, Microsoft have drilled their "OSS" "advocates" well. I don't think most of them are particularly idealistic (those who are, are hopelessly naïve). They're mercenary. Betraying their community for a high salary funded by proprietary exploitation and monopoly rents.
@rysiek @lightweight The only reason that Microsoft are doing anything with FOSS is to extract value and reduce its operating costs. If they can persuade people to use and develop for Azure based infrastructure then this is their main goal. Assume that anything coming from a Microsoft FOSS evangelist is a cynical self-serving scheme intended to get you to do free work for them. They might throw a few crumbs to a few devs to make it look as if they have goodwill.
If Microsoft BS was the only problem we had then things would be far easier. In the last decade thing have gotten a lot worse.
@rysiek @lightweight @hubert @bob It's also similar with Google. There are not many FOSS-related conferences and organizations not sponsored by Google. This makes it exceedingly difficult to critique anything that Google is doing or to advocate for things which are not in Google's business interests.
@lenzgr @bob @rysiek @hubert I agree that there are some companies - privately held, usually, who are very principle (as opposed to principal)-led... but I take a dim view of the entire *publicly listed corporate* model. I explain it in more detail here: https://davelane.nz/megacorps I see all of those - by their very nature - to be in a race to the ethical bottom.
@lightweight So is Google, which never says "free software", avoids copyleft as much as possible and bans AGPL.
@dragestil yes - both corporations suck and are cut from the same cloth. The main difference is that Google's more competent than Microsoft. (as is Apple, and even Facebook and Amazon). Microsoft is not only anti-freedom, but their "success" with such low quality software is offensive to engineers everywhere.
@dragestil here's why I think that Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (the 'Frightful Five') among others (like Salesforce, Oracle, Netflix, etc.) are irredeemable: https://davelane.nz/megacorps and this is why proprietary software, in general, needs to be deprecated strongly: https://davelane.nz/proprietary - in fact, anything that's "marketing driven" is anathema to our #FOSS cause: https://davelane.nz/marketing
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!