I’ve not seen a true example of this in over a decade. I feel like Microsoft becoming the biggest corporate contributor to open source has changed my outlook on Microsoft.
The problem is it’s impossible to prove either way, just becouse they haven’t done any extinguishing in over a decade doesn’t mean any of the theoretically positive things they are doing don’t have those intentions, embrace and extend aren’t antithetical to contributing to open source, in fact I would say what they are doing is embracing it pretty well
If not for their history I’d say it’s great! But this is Microsoft we’re talking about, even if they have changed we shouldn’t just assume their intentions are pure
It sounds like you are working off of FUD though. With the change over of Microsoft twice since the litigation against them, it stands to reason that there isn’t a single worker from high up in Microsoft that has been there since 1999.
I’ve not seen a true example of this in over a decade. I feel like Microsoft becoming the biggest corporate contributor to open source has changed my outlook on Microsoft.
The problem is it’s impossible to prove either way, just becouse they haven’t done any extinguishing in over a decade doesn’t mean any of the theoretically positive things they are doing don’t have those intentions, embrace and extend aren’t antithetical to contributing to open source, in fact I would say what they are doing is embracing it pretty well
If not for their history I’d say it’s great! But this is Microsoft we’re talking about, even if they have changed we shouldn’t just assume their intentions are pure
It sounds like you are working off of FUD though. With the change over of Microsoft twice since the litigation against them, it stands to reason that there isn’t a single worker from high up in Microsoft that has been there since 1999.