the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense
Let’s see.
“Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.
This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:
Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!
You do realize that “copyleft” isn’t the same thing as those other terms, right? “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses can be “copyleft,” but they can also be “permissive.”
That’s what was nonsense about your “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” statement. All copyleft is open source, but not all open source is copyleft.
Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.
Let’s see.
This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:
You do realize that “copyleft” isn’t the same thing as those other terms, right? “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses can be “copyleft,” but they can also be “permissive.”
That’s what was nonsense about your “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” statement. All copyleft is open source, but not all open source is copyleft.
Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.
Someone trying to argue the correct term for something, but than grossly misusing the term ‘manspreading’ is exactly my kind of humor.
So you have no excuse to be wrong, and are therefore trolling on purpose. Removed your own damn removed!