> Open-source software is free to use but that doesn’t mean that it’s in the public domain. So far so good. > A lot of open-source software is made available

> Open-source software is free to use but that doesn’t mean that it’s in the public domain. So far so good. > A lot of open-source software is made available under what is known as a “copyleft” license. The terms are simple: ... if you fork it, you must put the new version of the software—including the parts you developed—in the public domain and make the source code freely available. Wrong and wrong. The author is an appellate lawyer, and yet he seems unsure about the meaning of "public domain", or just hasn't read the licence (which is ironic, given that he is criticising people for exactly that failing). Also he hasn't understood the more nuanced point that "copyleft" licences don't necessarily require that you share the source code with people who only interact with the running code via a network service. That extra requirement is a feature of the AGPL beyond being a copyleft licence.