I never said MS is doing any of those things. I even linked their TOS to show you very clearly what they’re doing and not doing.
And MS has all the right to limit their marketplace to their own client too. After all, it is first and foremost, their service for their product specifically. It’s like you’re making an unofficial client for youtube.
I never said they shouldn’t “have the right”, I said they’re open-washing. They act like VS Code is open source but the build they distribute is not and a lot of the functionality they add in through recommended plugins are both not open source and you’re not allowed to easily download them from other plugins. Everything about VS Code is fauxpen source to the max.
I never have a problem with your follow up, even if you still did not specify your intention explicitly. At least the ToS is for a plugin that is owned by MS so it provides a clue to what you’re referring to. I have a problem with your original statement.
… A lot of the functionality is in the marketplace but non Microsoft products aren’t legally allowed to use it and you’re not allowed to distribute builds of the plugins.
To put differently:
A lot of the functionality is in the marketplace. Non MS products aren’t legally allowed to use it (1). You’re not allowed to distribute builds of the plugin(s) (2).
See the problem? That statement with the follow up is accusing MS restricting your right to use MS marketplace from non MS product as a problem (1), and THEN accusing that you cannot distribute the build of the plugins from said marketplace (2) which is only true for MS owned plugins.
My point is, clear up your mistakes in communication. It doesn’t help anyone to spread misinformation. I hate MS as the linux guy next door, but making false accusations, intentionally or not, will make people stay away from you. Because as I stated, I immediately understand the context just from you sending ToS of a plugin owned by MS. But your accusation is different entirely than your intention.
I never said MS is doing any of those things. I even linked their TOS to show you very clearly what they’re doing and not doing.
I never said they shouldn’t “have the right”, I said they’re open-washing. They act like VS Code is open source but the build they distribute is not and a lot of the functionality they add in through recommended plugins are both not open source and you’re not allowed to easily download them from other plugins. Everything about VS Code is fauxpen source to the max.
I never have a problem with your follow up, even if you still did not specify your intention explicitly. At least the ToS is for a plugin that is owned by MS so it provides a clue to what you’re referring to. I have a problem with your original statement.
To put differently:
A lot of the functionality is in the marketplace. Non MS products aren’t legally allowed to use it (1). You’re not allowed to distribute builds of the plugin(s) (2).
See the problem? That statement with the follow up is accusing MS restricting your right to use MS marketplace from non MS product as a problem (1), and THEN accusing that you cannot distribute the build of the plugins from said marketplace (2) which is only true for MS owned plugins.
Well you understand me now, right? So what’s your point?
My point is, clear up your mistakes in communication. It doesn’t help anyone to spread misinformation. I hate MS as the linux guy next door, but making false accusations, intentionally or not, will make people stay away from you. Because as I stated, I immediately understand the context just from you sending ToS of a plugin owned by MS. But your accusation is different entirely than your intention.