The real deal y0

  • 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
    Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
    Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

    Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
    .net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode



  • Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
    And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
    Remember, always read your employment agreements!



  • And not every team is allowed to do that.
    Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
    A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
    I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it


  • I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
    This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.

    Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.






  • Imo open source doesnt explicitly mean “you can build it yourself”
    What it does stand for is that incase of issues it can be looked at and resolved. Be it finding the broken component, or looking at the designs and reporting the fault. Both of which improve the thing that is open sourced.
    As an example : the framework laptop. Its partly open source, so in case of issues i could bring it to a repairshop which then can easily look at the designs, and figure the fault.
    Or what i did with my home server sbc : get the schematics, figure out a manufactoring fault ( cracked solder on pci lane ), fix it and report it to the manufacturer ( which then investigated if it was a one off or if a solder type change was needed ).