Please explain what this has to do with the architecture Microsoft owns. The icons are licensed as MIT, anybody can clone them to whatever git hosting service they want.
Licenses would be completely useless if you could just change them retroactively. Whatever was released under MIT will be available under MIT in perpetuity. MS can release this under a different license later or add new things using a different license, but it can’t retroactively revoke MIT license from the content that was already released under it.
Whatever was released under MIT will be available under MIT in perpetuity.
I agree with your general point, but I would have used “can” rather than “will”. They will be available as long as anyone hosts them, but Microsoft has no obligation to host the MIT version forever. (this is not a specificity of the MIT license)
Maybe it would be useful to save them their readme on wayback machine, so as to be able -in case of a future dispute- to prove that Microsoft had MIT’d it at some point.
Copyright owner can change the license as they like, they just can’t unrelease what has already been released in whatever license. If it is a permissive license anyone can even make a proprietary copy.
First you release something, wait until is widely adopted and then add ways to control users or capture their data, for example host contents on a CDN you control, or add paid extras, or switch license for later releases. All of this examples happened in the past.
The good old embrace-extend-lock-in.
Yeah, but that doesn’t affect the code that’s already released. If MS releases something in the future under a different license that’s really a separate discussion.
There are several things that Windows does well, if it weren’t for the spyware and all the junk that comes by default and that is hard to remove, it would be an excellent OS.
I personally dislike the UX on Windows. It feels very hodgepodge to me. The spyware and junk is the big issue though. This is why I don’t really like getting invested in any proprietary solutions. No matter how good a piece of software is initially, sooner or later the company will take it in a direction you don’t like because in order to stay profitable they have to chase the mainstream users. As soon as you fall out of that group, the product starts diverging from your needs.
On the other hand, this problem is less of an issue in open source. If the developers take a project in a new direction then it can always be forked as long there are enough people interested in preserving the existing functionality. One of my favorite examples of this is GNOME where it ended up being forked in to Mate and Cinnamon after the big UX direction switch.
I agree with this, although Windows has many technical advantages. I’m not so much against soft proprietary, but I am against big tech monopolies such as Microsoft, which dominates practically the entire software market.
On the other hand, I always hear that Windows is the easiest OS to handle, easier than Linux, which is only true at first glance.
Windows allows a huge number of configurations with more than 200 configurable points, but intentionally very hidden and poorly documented, inaccessible to normal users without great computer knowledge, but that allow to turn it into a fast and private OS, eliminating all this garbage.
MS tolerates it, because its main income is from its software, generally quite high prices and less from Windows as such, at least not until now. The thing will probably change with Windows 11 in the near future, where the company intends to limit access to third-party software, it is more by appropriating the entire system, avoiding or hindering the installation of another Operating System, rather than under the Windows layer.
This is why I think that Windows 10 is going to be the last Windows for somewhat more thoughtful users. In stores here you can see more and more that they sell PCs without OS (with FreeDOS), leaving it to the user’s choice.
Proprietary software should be treated as being fungible. It can be useful, but I don’t want to end up being locked into into having to use it. That means that I don’t want to use it for any situations where it would be difficult to replace or where I wouldn’t be able to easily extract my data from it.
It depends, surely you know for example IrfanView, a freeware proprietary sot for decades, without an alternative to match (it’s an app for Windows, but it works without problems on Linux with Wine).
For years I have also been using the SSuite, on and offline suite, a product of 2 brothers as a hobby, made with their own money, they earn their money with an electrical installation workshop.
The apps are a delight, it even includes its own search engine, Groot, with its own engine, all this private, without ads, without registration and anonymous, put as freeware.
Probably something insidious. Something totally shitty evil barely legal that their lawyers worked on for a good 200 man years over a period of 3 months.
deleted by creator
how?
deleted by creator
Please explain what this has to do with the architecture Microsoft owns. The icons are licensed as MIT, anybody can clone them to whatever git hosting service they want.
deleted by creator
MIT cannot be changed retroactively.
deleted by creator
Licenses would be completely useless if you could just change them retroactively. Whatever was released under MIT will be available under MIT in perpetuity. MS can release this under a different license later or add new things using a different license, but it can’t retroactively revoke MIT license from the content that was already released under it.
I agree with your general point, but I would have used “can” rather than “will”. They will be available as long as anyone hosts them, but Microsoft has no obligation to host the MIT version forever. (this is not a specificity of the MIT license)
Maybe it would be useful to save them their readme on wayback machine, so as to be able -in case of a future dispute- to prove that Microsoft had MIT’d it at some point.
Copyright owner can change the license as they like, they just can’t unrelease what has already been released in whatever license. If it is a permissive license anyone can even make a proprietary copy.
First you release something, wait until is widely adopted and then add ways to control users or capture their data, for example host contents on a CDN you control, or add paid extras, or switch license for later releases. All of this examples happened in the past. The good old embrace-extend-lock-in.
We’re talking about an emoji set released under MIT here.
Well in the end the purpose is the same. A company does not do that kinda of stuff because they love users unconditionally or something like that.
https://www.gwern.net/Complement
I clearly wrote “switch license for later releases”
Yeah, but that doesn’t affect the code that’s already released. If MS releases something in the future under a different license that’s really a separate discussion.
deleted by creator
I don’t know, in Windows you can Pop Up these with Winkey+. to insert them anywhere 🤔
well that is a convenient way to add emojis, a rare case of windows doing something right :P
they are just regular emojis though, and get rendered by whatever the emoji system set is being used
There are several things that Windows does well, if it weren’t for the spyware and all the junk that comes by default and that is hard to remove, it would be an excellent OS.
I personally dislike the UX on Windows. It feels very hodgepodge to me. The spyware and junk is the big issue though. This is why I don’t really like getting invested in any proprietary solutions. No matter how good a piece of software is initially, sooner or later the company will take it in a direction you don’t like because in order to stay profitable they have to chase the mainstream users. As soon as you fall out of that group, the product starts diverging from your needs.
On the other hand, this problem is less of an issue in open source. If the developers take a project in a new direction then it can always be forked as long there are enough people interested in preserving the existing functionality. One of my favorite examples of this is GNOME where it ended up being forked in to Mate and Cinnamon after the big UX direction switch.
I agree with this, although Windows has many technical advantages. I’m not so much against soft proprietary, but I am against big tech monopolies such as Microsoft, which dominates practically the entire software market. On the other hand, I always hear that Windows is the easiest OS to handle, easier than Linux, which is only true at first glance. Windows allows a huge number of configurations with more than 200 configurable points, but intentionally very hidden and poorly documented, inaccessible to normal users without great computer knowledge, but that allow to turn it into a fast and private OS, eliminating all this garbage. MS tolerates it, because its main income is from its software, generally quite high prices and less from Windows as such, at least not until now. The thing will probably change with Windows 11 in the near future, where the company intends to limit access to third-party software, it is more by appropriating the entire system, avoiding or hindering the installation of another Operating System, rather than under the Windows layer. This is why I think that Windows 10 is going to be the last Windows for somewhat more thoughtful users. In stores here you can see more and more that they sell PCs without OS (with FreeDOS), leaving it to the user’s choice.
Proprietary software should be treated as being fungible. It can be useful, but I don’t want to end up being locked into into having to use it. That means that I don’t want to use it for any situations where it would be difficult to replace or where I wouldn’t be able to easily extract my data from it.
It depends, surely you know for example IrfanView, a freeware proprietary sot for decades, without an alternative to match (it’s an app for Windows, but it works without problems on Linux with Wine). For years I have also been using the SSuite, on and offline suite, a product of 2 brothers as a hobby, made with their own money, they earn their money with an electrical installation workshop. The apps are a delight, it even includes its own search engine, Groot, with its own engine, all this private, without ads, without registration and anonymous, put as freeware.
Probably something insidious. Something totally shitty evil barely legal that their lawyers worked on for a good 200 man years over a period of 3 months.