When using Microsoft repositories you need to explicitly opt out on telemetry collection.

I think telemetry collection alone should be a good reason for Debian to consider repackaging it. I don’t want telemetry to be collected on my GNU/Linux machine, thanks Microsoft, but you already have so much telemetry from my Windows machine, please leave my other machines alone.

I hate to defend telemetry of all things but in this particular case the criticism is unfounded and lacks context:

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/telemetry

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetr...

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/tree/main/src/Cli/dotnet/Telem...

In any case, Debian would use https://github.com/dotnet/source-build and dotnet/dotnet, and could easily include the argument or a patch for this. It’s unlikely to be an issue. My bet it was not in Debian because there was no one to take initiative yet or there was but that person has faced a backlash by people in Debian who are similar to vocal minority here that posts FUD because of their little personal crusade.

Your second source mentions you have to change a variable in bash to opt out for telemetry, I fail to see where the FUD is.

yeah, debian does generally make spyware explicitly opt-in. even https://popcon.debian.org/stable/index.html is explicitly opt-in

i think the links you provide make it clear that the criticism is not unfounded

yes, i know about the microsoft apt source

as for building from source, i see, thanks! or maybe it's unresolved legal concerns? nobody so far in this thread has known of any, though

I found someone requesting that it be added to Debian:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/%3Ca%20href=%22bugreport.cgi...

So far no one has mentioned licensing being an issue.

that's great! possibly the link you meant was https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1078132

that seems to be from only a few weeks ago though

it doesn't seem to have come up on debian-legal in the last year or so https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ but debian-legal is also kind of a shadow of its former self

Notably in that bug report the reporter says they cannot maintain it (not that I blame them, not a small work)

I doubt it is due to legal concerns if Ubuntu, Fedora, and FreeBSD are all distributing their own builds.

you could easily imagine fedora distributing their own build of software whose licensing fails to comply with the debian free software guidelines; bundling proprietary software used to be common in linux distributions in fact

"legal concerns" is not the same as philosophy differences.