‘Open Source’ is a term, that means, that the Source code is accessible, but tells you nothing about the liberties that the license grants.
No it isn’t. “Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI alsocounts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.
You’re getting it confused with bullshit like “shared source” or “source available,” which are propagandistic terms designed to confuse people about proprietary software being freer than it actually is.
Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.
Who is not authoritative on the issue. I might agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think it messes up an “ought to” with an “is a”. Let’s replay this: Every open source license should be a copyleft license. Sure! It should. Like all property should belong to the community.
But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code. They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.
(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)
They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.
…and the rest of your paragraph confirms your lack of understanding, because the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense.
(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)
Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!
the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense
Let’s see.
“Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.
This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:
Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!
You do realize that “copyleft” isn’t the same thing as those other terms, right? “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses can be “copyleft,” but they can also be “permissive.”
That’s what was nonsense about your “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” statement. All copyleft is open source, but not all open source is copyleft.
Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.
No it isn’t. “Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.
You’re getting it confused with bullshit like “shared source” or “source available,” which are propagandistic terms designed to confuse people about proprietary software being freer than it actually is.
Who is not authoritative on the issue. I might agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think it messes up an “ought to” with an “is a”. Let’s replay this: Every open source license should be a copyleft license. Sure! It should. Like all property should belong to the community.
But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code. They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.
(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)
Except they are, because they’re the ones who coined the term.
The second you use the term “intellectual property[sic],” it tells me you either don’t understand what you’re talking about well enough to discuss it with precision, or you’re fatally biased about the issue…
…and the rest of your paragraph confirms your lack of understanding, because the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense.
Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!
Let’s see.
This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:
You do realize that “copyleft” isn’t the same thing as those other terms, right? “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses can be “copyleft,” but they can also be “permissive.”
That’s what was nonsense about your “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” statement. All copyleft is open source, but not all open source is copyleft.
Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.
So you have no excuse to be wrong, and are therefore trolling on purpose. Removed your own damn removed!