Why don`t they offer the same license for sources and binary file? As they add things that are not compatible with Free Software, it`s obvious. If you read the article, you know that they prohibit you from evolving the binary file in the Microsoft license. What for? If it were the same as the sources, they would not do it because they would have nothing to hide. That is not the case. No paranoia here, it`s a transparent ruse. These licensing terms are an agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation (or based on your place of residence, one of its related companies). They apply to the above software. The conditions also apply to all Microsoft services or updates for the software, except as long as they have different conditions. The MIT license is valid for the source.
For binary sharing, they can distribute VS with all the bonus features and their own license. Even Microsoft is silent DEMONIZING LINUX. Microsoft has not released some licenses, it has also stopped suing Linux companies. And that`s not my opinion, but the explanation of a VSCode developer posted on VSCode github. Check yourself github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-161792005 Of course, the license is important, if you distribute software and you`re wrong, it would change everything. Using the GPL license would also legally protect the binary file created from VSC sources and make sure you get what you expect for the binary level. Here`s how it works. When you create from the vscode repository, you can set up the resulting tool by personifying the product.json file. This file controls things like gallery breakpoints, send-a-smile endings, telemetry endings, logos, names and more. It`s their own software. The license does not matter. You can place it under GPL, while distributing any binary file.
These licenses do not limit the original copyright holder. Apart from that, I still use VSCode, but I run vscode in a jail without having access to the Internet. I like that many of you have a very necessary discussion about VSCode and the open source license in general. But I`m not the only one who`s talking about it. z.B.: s/.vscode/extensions/ms-vscode.cpptools-0.18.1/Microsoft.VSCode.CPP.Extension.linux and Microsoft.VSCode.CPP.IntelliSense.Msvc.linux Nothing as FUD? Times change. SCO tried to destroy Linux to develop its software. Oracle publishes the JVM under a much more restrictive commercial license. Red Hat could turn into a patent.
Richard Stallman is invited to leave the GNU Foundation. Linus Torvalds can be incredibly rude and sensitive to his own contributors. In fact, the MIT license is really simple. Do what you want with this software, retains the original copyright and I am not responsible for what could happen with this software. All right. Except that for the Visual Studio Code situation, it only covers the source code, not the binary file. A separate license for binaries and source code is a common way for free software to make money: they release the source code under a free license and download access to binary files or prohibit their commercial use. GeoGebra, for example, publishes its source code under the GPL, but prohibits the commercial use of its binary files unless you pay a fee. Users of Debian and Ubuntu will receive (at least) a copy of this GPL source, and they will be able to use it for commercial purposes without paying a fee. However, this practice is useless in the case of VSCode, since they donate it anyway. « Our Visual Studio code offering is based on a publicly available code base, licensed open source.