📎 AI Summary:
The thread discusses the controversy surrounding Microsoft's development of WinGet, highlighting concerns that Microsoft may have ethically appropriated ideas from independent developer Kevin Gagi’s open-source project, AppGet, without proper credit. The conversation explores whether Microsoft's actions align with open-source licensing and ethical standards, with some viewing it as exploitation and others as legally permissible. Overall, the discussion raises questions about corporate ethics in open-source collaboration and the trustworthiness of Microsoft’s practices moving forward.
The thread discusses the controversy surrounding Microsoft's development of WinGet, highlighting concerns that Microsoft may have ethically appropriated ideas from independent developer Kevin Gagi’s open-source project, AppGet, without proper credit. The conversation explores whether Microsoft's actions align with open-source licensing and ethical standards, with some viewing it as exploitation and others as legally permissible. Overall, the discussion raises questions about corporate ethics in open-source collaboration and the trustworthiness of Microsoft’s practices moving forward.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
- Messages
- 114,247
How Microsoft Stole WinGet
The YouTube video titled "How Microsoft Stole WinGet" delves into a controversial episode involving Microsoft's acquisition and development of their Windows package manager, WinGet, unveiling ethical concerns regarding their treatment of the original developer of AppGet, Kevin Gagi.
In the podcast segment, the hosts discuss how Microsoft approached Gagi last summer, expressing admiration for his work on AppGet and suggesting they could collaborate on integrating a package manager into Windows. Microsoft initially hinted at hiring him, which Gagi considered, yet the prospect of a job offer fizzled out over time, culminating in complete radio silence from Microsoft for several months.
Just before Microsoft unveiled WinGet at their Build conference, Gagi received an email indicating that a new package manager inspired by his work would be announced. This revelation led to responses from the tech community, with opinions varying widely. Some viewed this as an unethical appropriation of Gagi's efforts, while others argued that since AppGet was open-source, Microsoft was within their legal rights to create what they termed a "fork."
Gagi's original licensing of AppGet under the Apache License 2.0 permitted such actions, yet many felt that Microsoft's lack of credit and their courting of Gagi bordered on exploitation. Discussions around the ethics of "ghosting" a developer after expressing interest in their work highlighted the complex dynamics between open-source innovation and corporate rights.
The hosts shared insights on Microsoft’s past reputation, drawing parallels between the company's historical practices and its current operations. They pointed out that community perceptions of Microsoft as a good corporate citizen in the open-source realm could be damaged by incidents like these, despite the company’s ongoing efforts to embrace open-source more than ever before.
Whether WinGet truly owes its creation to Gagi's work remains a subject of debate, with the community watching closely for Microsoft's forthcoming actions regarding proper acknowledgments and possible adaptations of the licensing terms. The discussion ultimately invites reflections on the ethics within tech development, particularly between large corporations and independent developers.
As this saga unfolds, what are your thoughts? Do you believe Microsoft handled the situation ethically? Would you trust them as a partner for future developments in the open-source ecosystem? Share your perspectives!
The YouTube video titled "How Microsoft Stole WinGet" delves into a controversial episode involving Microsoft's acquisition and development of their Windows package manager, WinGet, unveiling ethical concerns regarding their treatment of the original developer of AppGet, Kevin Gagi.
In the podcast segment, the hosts discuss how Microsoft approached Gagi last summer, expressing admiration for his work on AppGet and suggesting they could collaborate on integrating a package manager into Windows. Microsoft initially hinted at hiring him, which Gagi considered, yet the prospect of a job offer fizzled out over time, culminating in complete radio silence from Microsoft for several months.
Just before Microsoft unveiled WinGet at their Build conference, Gagi received an email indicating that a new package manager inspired by his work would be announced. This revelation led to responses from the tech community, with opinions varying widely. Some viewed this as an unethical appropriation of Gagi's efforts, while others argued that since AppGet was open-source, Microsoft was within their legal rights to create what they termed a "fork."
Gagi's original licensing of AppGet under the Apache License 2.0 permitted such actions, yet many felt that Microsoft's lack of credit and their courting of Gagi bordered on exploitation. Discussions around the ethics of "ghosting" a developer after expressing interest in their work highlighted the complex dynamics between open-source innovation and corporate rights.
The hosts shared insights on Microsoft’s past reputation, drawing parallels between the company's historical practices and its current operations. They pointed out that community perceptions of Microsoft as a good corporate citizen in the open-source realm could be damaged by incidents like these, despite the company’s ongoing efforts to embrace open-source more than ever before.
Whether WinGet truly owes its creation to Gagi's work remains a subject of debate, with the community watching closely for Microsoft's forthcoming actions regarding proper acknowledgments and possible adaptations of the licensing terms. The discussion ultimately invites reflections on the ethics within tech development, particularly between large corporations and independent developers.
As this saga unfolds, what are your thoughts? Do you believe Microsoft handled the situation ethically? Would you trust them as a partner for future developments in the open-source ecosystem? Share your perspectives!
