News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by mc808 on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @03:53PM (#11392403)
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...

Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by mpeg on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @04:09PM (#11392542)
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.

Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by ZainRiz on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @04:21PM (#11392660)
Too late, Bot Builder reads email now
Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by joepie91_ on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @05:24PM (#11393140)
That's precisely why hellcow distinguished between "you can read the source" and "open-source". It's not just a legal difference.
Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by mc808 on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @05:33PM (#11393215)
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.
Re:Microsoft Bot Framework by Eyas on Wednesday March 30, 2016 @07:48PM (#11393928)
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.