|
|
|
|
|
by jasode
2152 days ago
|
|
>The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA The blog author complained about "Live Share" as one example. As far as I can tell, "Live Share" is not in the builds one downloads from Microsoft's "Visual Studio Code" website: https://code.visualstudio.com/download The Live Share feature is downloaded from a separate web page:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliv... This separation seems similar to SQLite Encryption Extension. Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The github page for "Visual Studio Code" prominently displays "Open Source" in its title: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode I'm willing to be convinced that it's a marketing deception and "open source" should be removed but so far, I haven't seen any precedent from other hybrid open/closed source projects justifying that. |
|
The difference is that typical usage of SQLite is co-located with an application, such that you don't need encryption, and it doesn't market itself as a great database to stand up on a far-away server.
VSCode is marketing these extensions with the core product, as features thereof. They seem to be much closer to critical, core functionality. I think that they are functionally similar situations, except that nobody uses/cares-about that SQLite extension.
Microsoft is also marketing as if VS Code is open source. One claim or the other is fine, but the combination is deceptive. There are many closed-source components which are part of VS Code, if indirectly.