the compiled version of chrome is not Free Software or Open Source. only a version from sources only is. you can't build chrome from those sources, only chromium.

now it is possible that VSCode is different in that regard. but if that were the case then VSCodium would not need to exist. so i guess that it is not possible to build a full version of VSCode from those sources either. i'd love to be wrong on that though

I don't think I mentioned Chrome?

It's perfectly possible to build VSCode from source.

AFAIK, the main reason VSCodium exists is to remove telemetry (since it's opt-in by default in VSCode, something I do disagree with).

is the telemetry in the source?

in that case, very well. i am happy to be wrong, and retract any claim that VSCode itself is not fully open. thank you.

Yes, it's in the source code in GitHub.

these extensions are a key part of my workflow so imo vscode in effect is proprietary as i would not find value in it without these. this appears to be an opinion that is shared with other devs here. it seems you simply handwaving that opinion away as immaterial is more divisive than someone asserting that if you appreciate OSS you should use OSS.

All FOSS is OSS, but not all OSS is FOSS.

Right, but VSCode is MIT licensed.

The gripe in the article is about extensions not also being MIT licensed - an argument precisely nobody would be making if it wasn't Microsoft; as someone else here pointed out, you could make the same argument about SQLite, but nobody would.

It’s important to note which code is MIT licensed, and which isn’t, as others have mentioned around components of the extension functionality itself.

I’m not making the specific claims you are arguing against, and I don’t disagree with what you say, in any case. Just as in SQL, and in this case, these licenses matter. A feature matrix clarifying features and licenses would be mice. Also, it would be nice to have a fully FOSS mode for VS Code in its settings or config. It is a distinction with a difference.