What are you talking about? It's MIT licensed and their contribution policy says they do accept features if you sign their CLA (which is exactly the same thing Google and any other big companies do)
What closed Microsoft-controlled system? You can compile that code in either Mono or coreclr.
I get you're not happy Microsoft just released something in an area you've been working in, but this is just FUD.
"I get you're not happy Microsoft just released something in an area you've been working in, but this is just FUD."
Don't be a knob. That's clearly not how he feels at all.
> Don't be a knob.
Please don't call names in HN comments. Your comment would be good without that bit.
Fair point. I apologise to all those involved or offended by my comment.
Looks like Contributing.md was updated 35 minutes ago to "BotBuilder is currently accepting contributions in the form of bug fixes and new features ..." (Significant contributions still require a CLA/CYA, but that's not uncommon.)
https://github.com/Microsoft/BotBuilder/commit/78e7730f49574...
I don't see why it would matter, just because you release something under a free license doesn't mean you should accept contributions.
Otherwise all our software would be capable of reading email.
Too late, Bot Builder reads email now
That's precisely why hellcow distinguished between "you can read the source" and "open-source". It's not just a legal difference.
If the license allows you to freely read, modify, and distribute the source, it's open source. If we add "upstream welcomes your contributions" as another criterion, that would disqualify a lot of open source projects including all of the abandoned projects out there.
The Linux kernel is most certainly open source but their criteria to accept contributions is no more open than this or many other projects.
The maintainer(s) get(s) PR approval. Big features that change the direction of the tool are welcome in forks but require maintainers to agree if merged upstream.
Perception is important as always: being perceived as "open source" is now vogue and seems to be more of a marketing function for large corporate behemoths (most mere mortals have no idea what a "pull request" is but the term "open source" seems to have become more mainstream in recent years).
In their defense, if 100 or so Open Source projects where they (MSFT) accept PR does not convince you, I do not know what will. In this particular project, it could, that core group wants a level quality or functionality or other benchmarks before opening up for PR. It was done before, source was Open Source and incrementally when the core team felt comfortable started accepting Pull requests.
Re:Microsoft Bot Framework
by wmccullough on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @03:43PM
(#11392333)
I can see your point, but this isn't the case for Microsoft. This framework may be not accepting PR's yet, but just like the other 100+ repositories that do, I'm sure this will join shortly.
It's licensed under MIT license.
Any bots you build on Microsoft's framework as far as I can tell are also locked into a closed Microsoft-controlled system. Just because it's readable on Github and pushes messages to Slack doesn't really mean that it's open-source in the way we've come to expect from Linux, etc.
I'm building a free-as-in-speech alternative.