-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Menu license links to non Open Source license #60
Comments
This is correct. VS Code the product has a different license than the code in the repository. |
@chrisdias, could some clarification be added to that page? |
So, If we get the code from the repo is OSS but if we get the executables they aren't, isn't it? It makes no sense at all :S |
+1 to reopen and talk about this issue. I hope this is a 'bug' and not a decision because it makes no sense at all. |
+1 to reopen it. This is not clear enough. |
Thanks for the interest in this topic and I apologize for not commenting sooner, I’ve been on vacation and just getting through my backlog. Let me try to provide more details behind our thinking here. When we set out to open source our code base, we looked for common practices to emulate for our scenario. We wanted to deliver a Microsoft branded product, built on top of an open source code base that the community could explore and contribute to. We observed a number of branded products being released under a custom product license, while making the underlying source code available to the community under an open source license. For example, Chrome is built on Chromium, the Oracle JDK is built from OpenJDK, Xamarin Studio is built on MonoDevelop, and JetBrains products are built on top of the IntelliJ platform. Those branded products come with their own custom license terms, but are built on top of a code base that’s been open sourced. We then follow a similar model for Visual Studio Code. We build on top of the The cool thing about all of this is that you have the choice to use the Visual Studio Code branded product under our license or you can build a version of the tool straight from the Here's how it works. When you build from the When we build Visual Studio Code, we do exactly this. We clone the When you clone and build from the I hope this helps explain why our Microsoft branded Visual Studio Code product has a custom product license while the Chris |
@chrisdias Thanks for explaining. It would be good to ensure any differences other than Branding / telemetry are clearly documented. At least we don't need to be concerned that this is a 'bait and switch' manoeuvre as the branded version is free :) |
@SteveALee You can look at the |
Hah, of course. Thanks. |
@erkinalp i'm not sure i understand the comment. what is the showstopper? |
@chrisdias: It would be, but it is not now, i.e. a wish. |
@chrisdias This distinction shouldn't be buried in an issue somewhere. The branding isn't changing, and the names (and abbreviations) everyone interchanges will forever perpetuate this licensing confusion. This needs to be content readily available from https://code.visualstudio.com/License. A blurb at the top with a link to the repo license would fix this for an increasing number of people. Right now, if I pull up the VS Code license, I'm going to read it and think:
Well that seems wrong. There's a Marketplace explicitly for distributing those extensions. What is this trying to say?
...so I can't fix something and make a PR? Because it'd be illegal.
Does this mean I can't click cancel on an update? That minimizes a Microsoft notice.
So I can't put the installer on a share? Sections 1 and 5 are in conflict as to what a user can do. ...we're all developers here. We all know this is confusing. Look at the laundry list of issues relating to this one linked in history. Can we please fix this with a small blurb of text at the top of https://code.visualstudio.com/License? |
Hi @NickCraver, Thanks for posting this suggestion. I can see how the product license can generate questions for developers wishing to contribute to the product. As a result, I've updated the stable and insider pages to clarify that the license is for VS Code the product and that the source is licensed under the MIT license. The localized license pages will be updated as soon as I get the translations back. Chris |
Thanks Chris, that little blurb is a fantastic addition. I really appreciate you improving this! |
Um, wouldn't this get less dupes if it was left open until such time as MS realizes that they can maintain their brand in a less confusing and contradictory manner? |
Anyone who accepts that proprietary license is legally prohibited from contributing to this project. The license states: "You may not...reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the software". Accessing this GitHub repository is an attempt to derive the source code for the software. |
@chrisdias "You can look at the |
¿Can we modify the product.json file on "Code OSS" without restriction acording to MIT License? |
@jsolisu We can, but my point is that the |
@chrisdias With all due respect, this sounds like an argumentum ad populum: since other companies are re-licensing their open-source apps under proprietary EULA's (case in point: Oracle, Google, and JetBrains), we should do it too. You distribute this software free of charge, and adding a custom look and feel and extension gallery doesn't seem to justify re-licensing it in this way. As a counterexample, both the source and binary distributions of Atom come with the package manager and are released under the MIT License. What gives? |
Clarifying product name and its licensing. Related to microsoft#60, microsoft#1230, microsoft#2982, microsoft#3029, microsoft#5342, microsoft#17996. Based on @chrisdias [comment](microsoft#2983 (comment)) and [comment](microsoft#60 (comment))
I've just downloaded it:
The license link points to non Open Source license:
https://code.visualstudio.com/license#vscode
For example:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: