3 ms·

Did you read what you quoted?

• IncRnd 4y ago
  What I pointed out through a rhetorical question is that the article's first sentence tells others their opinions of open source are limited, but the premise of that statement is that the author is separate from that rule and by the act of writing this statement is setting a broad opinion which others are not allowed to have, due to the same statement imposing a limitation on them. I was pointing out that the first sentence of the article contains a contradiction in its premise.
  • gfodor 4y ago
    This isn’t a contradiction - the claim is that the only entitlement one has with open source is that which is outlined in the licenses. This is objectively the floor across all projects. From there, entitlements are granted by project authors and sit outside those granted by the licenses. The error, which is sadly common, is to presume entitlements of the latter kind follow necessarily from the former.
    • pessimizer 4y ago
      The problem is that this is relying on equivocation around the word "entitlement." One type of "entitlement" is an actual right that you can fight over in court, it's called the license. The other type of "entitlement" is just a pejorative euphemism for the word "expectation." By slipping back and forth between those meanings, you can create the impression of a proof that people's expectations are a type of illegal assault.