4 ms·

Thanks for the explanations, that explains your GPLv2 post well. As far as I know there is no phrase that describes software whose source code has been intenti

• simoncion 11y ago
  > As far as I know there is no phrase that describes software whose source code has been intentionally publicly released under a license that doesn't meet the OSD/etc. Were you -perhaps- born in the 1990's or later? As I remember it, "open source" was commonly used to describe programs that were not "closed source". Additionally, I expect that if we were to ask a few thousand native English speakers either "What is the opposite of closed?" or "What is closed's antonym?", the overwhelming majority of them would reply "open". I get that you don't want to concede the point, and that you might feel that acknowledging the validity and reasonableness of my position would serve to weaken your own position. However -in truth- this strengthens your assertions, as it indicates that you've put thought and consideration into your positions, and -crucially- are willing to revise your view of the world when it becomes clear that your view doesn't match reality. Twitter "loves" zealots. [0] Most reasonable people don't. [0] Note that a zealot is different from a hard-liner. RMS is a hard-liner who has put a lot of thought and consideration into his positions. A member of $SOCIAL_MOVEMENT who primarily interacts with the movement by frothing about it on $SOCIAL_MEDIA is a zealot.