[yoyohello13]

Sorry, I should have been more specific and said FOSS. VSCode is still encumbered by the weight of a mega corp. It's like saying Chrome is open source. Sure it is, but it still exists to serve the corporation that owns it.

[TiredOfLife]

It's MIT licensed. So it's more FOSS than FOSS

[correct-horse]

It's free software in letter, but not in spirit. True free software doesn't lock out non-official builds for zero technical reasons.

[fragmede]

what about vscodium? for that reason, what was iceweasel?

[janice1999]

vscodium and VSCode forks are legally prevented from using the normal VSCode extension site. They have their own: https://open-vsx.org/

As far as I know Chrome forks are not blocked from using extensions from the Chrome Web Store.

[n_plus_1_acc]

*according to microsoft

[nicce]

There is some sort of vendor lock-in VSCode. It at least used to be extremely difficult to make GitHub Copilot to work with codium. There is something closed source in VSCode that makes the difference.

It was so difficult to maintain, that I ended up switching to VSCode. So the ”lock-in” worked.

[bigstrat2003]

The software is free, the extension site is not. I agree that's a shitty practice by MS, but it doesn't somehow make VSCode not free software.

[o11c]

It isn't 1860 anymore, "the freedom to take freedom away" no longer counts.

[hollerith]

Tortured analogy.

[novagameco]

In what way is VSCode comparable to enslaving human beings?

[tristan957]

Having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free.

MIT takes freedom away from end users at the expense of the developer's freedom.

[LeFantome]

Exactly how?

It sounds like you are trying to define freedom as Stallman would. Based on that, here are his “4 freedoms”…

1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Which of the above does MIT not provide? Honestly, which one?

What you seem to be looking for is to take away the ability for somebody who writes NEW code to be able to choose a license for it. You want to take away their freedom?

And why exactly? What “user freedom” does this serve?

Well, it forces that users will get access to FUTURE code that developers write.

I think it is a stretch to suggest that a developer writing new code makes existing users less free. Forcing a license for the new code certainly does make the developer less free though.

If “having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free” then the only morally acceptable choice is to stop using the GPL. Is that what you were trying to say?

[novagameco]

In a way that is comparable to enslaving human beings?

[tristan957]

When you enslave a human being, you take away someone's freedom. I'm not sure how to more clearly express this.

[shrimp_emoji]

It uses indentured neural networks to write code for you. You're a neural network! You just have rights because you ain't digital (and way larger and possibly using quantum effects). Smh

[pxc]

It's not F/OSS at all. It's proprietary software with some open-source components, which together comprise VSCodium.