• stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes, but people find this interesting because historically, Microsoft was actively trying to destroy Linux (look up Halloween documents) and even said that Linux is cancer.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      A lot changed after Satya Nadella took the helm. The modern .NET platform is really quite nice, and MS does a lot of FOSS open source work.

      Obviously it’s good to be sceptical, they’re a large corporation and all they want is money, they’re not our friends. They’re just not as draconian as they were in the 90s and the 00s.

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Usually FOSS is specifically copyleft licences like the GPL, which Microsoft don’t use. Their open-source stuff tends to be MIT.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          While you’re correct, that’s funny because as a developer using a framework like dotNET, MIT gives YOU more freedom. At least for anything statically linked where the GPL code would end up as part of your binary and force you to GPL your own code I believe.

          • 6xpipe_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            MIT gives YOU more freedom

            After years of debate about licenses for my own software (that only I use…), my philosophy has been boiled down to this: MIT for libraries. GPL for programs.

            This way, other developers can freely use your library, and your program remains free.