[snthd]

Elsewhere[0] Microsoft have redefined "Open Source" to not include the right to redistribute, or to host on a cloud service.

So while there's nothing wrong here with calling an MIT project open souce, it's not inconsistent with their own definition, and useable as propaganda.

[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/services/developer-tools/d...

>Is Azure Data Studio open source?

>Yes, the source code for Azure Data Studio and its data providers is open source and available on GitHub. The source code for the front-end Azure Data Studio, which is based on Microsoft Visual Studio Code, is available under an end-user license agreement that provides rights to modify and use the software, but not to redistribute it or host it in a cloud service. The source code for the data providers is available under the MIT license.

[chrisseaton]

It’s still useful to have the source open for reference even if you can’t redistribute though.

[nojito]

How is the most common open source license not open source?

[samhw]

I mean, whatever the truth may be, you're begging the question somewhat by calling it an 'open source license'.

[skylanh]

BSDL, GPL, MIT License.

This has been an argument for at least 25 years that I've been around this stuff.

[snthd]

Both sides of that argument agree that the right to redistribute is fundamental to FLOSS.

Microsoft is defining their product, which you can't redistribute[0], as "Open Source".

[0] https://github.com/microsoft/azuredatastudio/blob/4012f26976...