* Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudic...@gmail.com> [2022-03-15 01:03]: > > That is what you say, though objectively, legally and protectively, > it > > is not the reality. > Legally and protectively "free software" doesn't have more meaning or > value than "open source". Possibly less.
That is why we use methods to protect free software. One good method is the copyleft GNU GPL license and copyright laws. Very smart invention by Richard Stallman. The term "free software" as such is not meaningful unless one knows what we are talking about. To know that one has to read free software philosophy. > That said, as I mentioned, the term "open source" is used by government > agencies. It also appears in Italian legislation (translated in > Italian, even though developers usually say "open source", without > translating it). The term "open source" has also been used in court > decisions with the correct meaning in the United States, as well as at > least one court order in Italy I am aware of (which didn't translate > it). Yes, and it is used wrongly. I have already demonstrated example with NASA open source license which is proprietary. Term alone does not mean nothing much, also for courts. Courts want to understand what was agreed between parties. One foundational document that tells about agreement is a license, and not the "term" alone. > That said, the mere fact that it is not *illegal* to use the term "open > source" as a synonym of "source available" doesn't mean it's > correct. Legal or illegal, please, I and other people can use any terms we want. Speaking is not illegal. Trademark usage means selling goods or services under specific trademark. Even if you do use same trademark as other person, that does not make it automatically trademark infringement (akin to illegality). Using ANY (decent) terms in conversations is not illegal. You can mention any trademarks you wish and want. Correct or not, we don't use "open" in Libreplanet or GNU system distributions, we call it free software for reasons of freedomg. > You made a claim that that particular piece of software is open > source. I said the claim is wrong. For that to be the case, "open > source" doesn't need to be a trademark and calling that piece of > software "open source" doesn't need to be illegal. You are moving > the goalpost to something I never said. For you is wrong, for author is obviously not wrong. If author calls it open source, I let it be, but I know it is not free software. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss