| ▲ | teruakohatu 9 hours ago |
| I am astounded that the maintainer and inventor of Wireguard is in this position. Microsoft even supports Wireguard in Azure Kubernetes Service. |
|
| ▲ | windowliker 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is this another example of their old modus operandi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... ? |
| |
| ▲ | riskable 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish was replaced by the AAA strategy: Acquire, Assimilate, Abandon. They were trying to be more Google-like with that "Abandon" step I think. They've since moved on to the SSS strategy: Ship, Slip, Slop. | | |
| ▲ | arcanemachiner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Good heavens! My acronymical notes on Microsoft's product strategy are two revisions out of date! | |
| ▲ | wtyvn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Damn, I thought it was "Slop, Ship, Smile" |
|
|
|
| ▲ | miroljub 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe time for a custom license that would require M$ to sign up for special T&Cs if they want to use this software? Who cares if it's OSI-approved or not, a line saying "M$, Google, and the like need written permission for every use case" would help to make those leeches honest. Just learn from the JSLint example. |
| |
| ▲ | greenavocado 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This license modifier already exists for others to use (I can't post the direct links here because this site will sanction me for doing so) plus n-word dot com hosts information about the plus n-word license which purports: - The software will not be used or hosted by western corporations that promote censorship - The software will not be used or hosted by compromised individuals that promote censorship - Users of the software will be immune to attacks that would result in censorship of others | | |
| ▲ | gzread 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's even GPL compatible, because the GPL makes provision for additional notice requirements. That would be both hilarious and horrifying if the only thing stopping the corporate dystopia is that Microsoft doesn't want to say the N word. |
| |
| ▲ | UqWBcuFx6NV4r 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We literally just did this. Now we have Valkey. Nobody won. | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did anyone lose? Valkey is better because all of the new development work happens on Valkey, not because of the license. If the actual developer changed the license, that would be a different situation. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Already__Taken 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's got a lot of analogy to restaurants banning Uber delivery for not handling their food to their standards. |
| |
|
| ▲ | nelox 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Agree. Single point of failure. One developer, one account. Crazy. |
| |
| ▲ | ptx 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Having multiple accounts wouldn't help, as Microsoft could easily suspend all the accounts of everyone associated with the project if any account looks suspicious. The single point of failure is Microsoft. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're not actually allowed to avoid this by having multiple accounts, that falls under "ban evasion". But yes, there's a lot of critical single maintainer projects. | |
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, that is not the issue here. The source of the problem is something different. This is a wrong root cause analysis. | |
| ▲ | jamesnorden 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would more than one account help in this scenario, exactly? | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Any account can sign any (same) piece of software. Of course Microsoft could detect the it's signing a software related to a banned signed and ban the new account. So veracrypt (and wireguard) is stuck. It's outrageous. MS is simply enforcing some Government crackdown on encryption software that would interfere with backdoors. |
|
|
