Re: Should we talk about "open source" hardware?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > - Microsoft develops the Code - OSS text editor on GitHub, on the
  > confusingly named "vscode" repository. It's only distributed as source
  > code.
  > - Microsoft distributes and promotes Visual Studio Code, which has the
  > same source code as Code - OSS, plus telemetry, and is proprietary and
  > distributed without source code.
  > - The Eclipse Foundation manages an independent extension store for
  > Code - OSS extensions, which has free extensions only.
  > - VS Codium is an independent project, not endorsed by Microsoft,
  > which compiles Code - OSS from source and replaces the default
  > extension store with the one managed by Eclipse.
  > - Eclipse Theia is a fork of Code - OSS. It also uses the alternative
  > store managed by Eclipse.

This is clear (though complex).  Thanks.

I looked at that sentence in
https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html to see
what changes to make, and I think it is correct:

    <p>Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one
    without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
    conditions.  <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/";>Microsoft
    does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>

>From what you said, that's exactly true.  Code - OSS carries a weak
license (tell me if I'm wrong), and Visual Studio Code is a nonfree
executable which incorporates the code of Code - OSS and puts
on other nonfree conditions.

Is there an error I don't recognize?  Or some other kind of problem?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)