Microsoft's Software Is Malware - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
www.gnu.org
Explore Microsoft products and services for your home or business. Shop Surface, Microsoft 365, Xbox, Windows, Azure, and more. Find downloads and get support.

I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?

  • rand_alpha19
    12•17 days ago

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

    Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc. This doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it.

    Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.

    It’s getting more and more common that, even in cases where code is open source, only part of the codebase is actually available. This is something that Microsoft (and other wealthy tech companies) loves to do to show that it’s “transparent.”

    • @scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
      -1•17 days ago

      Thanks.

      Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.

      GPL as an example.

      Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc

      If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:

      Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

      • @BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
        1•16 days ago

        I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”

        Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).

        Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.

        • @scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
          1•16 days ago

          (A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.

            • @scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
              2•16 days ago

              It requires any modifications to be under GPL.

              And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.

              And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.

              How it harms the end user are described.

              • @BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
                0•15 days ago

                While I’m not gonna argue the merits of GPL—it is technically restricting modification, even if there is no practical difference for those only interested in adding/removing functionality—I disagree with the assessment that using the GPL causes harm to the users.

                The reasoning seems to be that a 3rd party’s refusal to use the software because of the license, and suvsequent use of a shittier product is somehow the (hypothetical GPL-using) OpenSSH dev’s fault.

                The problem is that accepting the premise that the devs are responsible for what people who choose to not use their software do entails that they are then responsible for everyone who uses any type of software tangentially related to OpenSSH’s functionality. It also means that it’s their fault for whatever consequences of using the licenses they currently do, which inevitably drive some people away for various reasons. It also means any potential license (or even lack thereof) is open to the same criticism.