[sremani]

A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me and is an open source project by definition.

No one is taking away your right to hate Microsoft, but picking OSS as bull-work of your argument is not there any more.

edit: bull-work(tm)

[treehau5]

> A project under MIT license and accepting PR is good enough for me

He is not pretending to be an arbiter but speaking generally to what many people, including myself, believe. And in any case, you attempted to refute what you reduced down to his own subjective opinion, with your own subjective opinion.

Working against software patents is part of the larger essence of OSS, and it was just a specific example of it. If you are for software patents, and somehow magically "for" open source, then you aren't really "Open Source" you are just hiding behind that facade so you can now accept free labor when it serves your purposes.

So, in that regard, it isn't difficult to see where the negative sentiment is coming from in regard's to the recent media blast of the "new Microsoft."

[sremani]

Lets agree there are levels of open-ness and not being a Gnu-level or RedHat level OSS does not mean the contributions are not worth it nor should not be acknowledged.

[treehau5]

Well I will most certainly agree there is "publicly accessible" source, which is essentially what Microsoft, Facebook, and the likes have, where you can view the code, but getting a pull request accepted requires signing a CLA (with varying levels of avarice) and conforming to the goals of the organization, rather than the project. (Actually I will defend facebook by saying their CLA is not that egregious, and according to most, the version of react that is open sourced is actually different than the version they use internally), but calling that "Open Source Software" is disingenuous at best.

[dsp1234]

Well I will most certainly agree there is "publicly accessible" source,

It's not just publicly accessible, it's MIT licensed with a patent grant. You could take the code, modify it in literally any way you want, wrap it in a commercial product and resell it. It doesn't come more free or open source without actually being public domain.

What you're asking for appears to be some sort of 'super open source' where not only are free to view, modify, and distribute your code, but also have to a right to have your code merged into the mainline of the code. What you're asking for goes well beyond the four freedoms.[0]

[0] - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[treehau5]

> wrap it in a commercial product and resell it.

The PATENTS.txt file seems to suggest otherwise, you must stay within the bounds of "covered code". IANAL so I do not know what the side effects of this seemingly intersection of their patent/license coverage curtails, but it does seem like you lose protection and could have a Android/Oracle situation if you innovate something on top of the core CLR outside of the 'covered' bounds and then decided to sell it.

There's a slightly older writeup about it here http://endsoftpatents.org/2014/11/ms-net/

In any case, as the name suggests, it's only a promise, not a guarantee of rights.

[serge2k]

If you have a strong objection then you are free to fork it and do whatever you want. If other people feel the same you can build a community around your fork.

It's FOSS.

[spicyj]

> the version of react that is open sourced is actually different than the version they use internally

That's not true; we use the same code.

[treehau5]

Thank you for confirming. A few people told me this but I was a little suspicious, but again you can never truly know.

[csours]

OT Nitpick: I think you mean bulwark: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bulwark