ewan-mclean

11 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   > The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive You are exactly correct about this. 1. Open-Source is a "Marketing Program for Free-Software". You describe yourself as having the "free
2. 2.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   Fans of Free-Software believe the opposite of "closed source" is not "open-source", apparently they believe the opposite is "source available" - but how many people would agree? The USPTO denied a trademark and
3. 3.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   Did anyone claim that it was `Free Software`? Does anyone ever claim that they're trying to release free-software but not FSF free-software? I think the issue is that the opposite of `closed-source` is clearly not `OSI Approved License
4. 4.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   So only restrictions on distribution of changes, and restrictions on licensing can be "free libre and open-source software"? Is GPL license virality a form of freedom?
5. 5.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   So why did the OSI write this?: > While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost
6. 6.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   > I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free. I think you are exactly correct. It's deeply disturbin
7. 7.▲
   by ewan-mclean 3y ago

   So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"? Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with? Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological check