I'm still using it, which makes me happy and sad at the same time.
But yeah, I wish they'd open source VB6 too. There were some fond memories back there. I have some old programs I can't find components for online too, which are somewhere in the old VB6 install. There's play potential, even if I have no real practical need for it.
And it's hard to imagine that open sourcing VB6 would harm Microsoft's business in any way.
Said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think there is anything out there now that was a productive as VB6 development. Rapid Application Development was the buzzword of the day, and it really stood up to the name.
Don't quote me on this though, because I wasn't a first party member of the conversations.
RAD (rapid application development) of GUI applications was never easier and such a joy then with VB6. I remember I was very sad when they announced their vision for dotNet - it took them additional four years until dotNet was available in v1. In the meantime they lost all developers to HTML and PHP & co. Dreamweaver WYSIWYG was good enough.
But for people who have to support VB6 regardless of whether or not Microsoft open sources it, I'm sure it'd be pretty helpful.
We still have stuff out there that runs on COBOL, I have a feeling there will still be some life-dependent VB6 code out there somewhere in 2050.
Thinking about it, I am going to dig out my old VB6 VM image and have a play. Be interesting to see how many people out there would want support for VB6 apps today.
The long term plan from what I've read is for .Net Core to eventually form the foundation of the .Net Framework, then the Framework (Windows/GDI+/COM+/etc) libraries with be built on top with other OS-specific libraries being created for other platforms.
The vast majority of the .Net framework is already Open Source including the compiler. What in particular are you missing that you need?