https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)
For instance, let's look at the BSD license. It requires copyright notices in source code to be preserved. That means that it reserves the attribution right.
The original license required them in executable code; the two-clause version relaxes it; it doesn't demand any expression of attribution in the compiled code.
However, it does not appear to fully waive the attribution right; it requires the copyright notices and license clauses to remain in the source code. The compiled code is still the original author's copyright; nothing in the license says that it isn't.
If someone claims they developed it, it's infringement on the attribution copyright, even though they have the license-granted right to redistribute the code without making such deceptive claims.
IANAL, but if you're going to plagiarize, I suspect the safest bet is to pick something that has lapsed into the public domain, not something with copyrights and licenses in it.
b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.
I'd strongly disagree with that too.
> Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved.
Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
As for the second part: Time for first hand source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
(quote start)
"“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”
We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms."
(quote end)
People intentionally making free software do not see themselves as merely open source software making. They do not wish to be mislabeled. Is that not enough for you? I mean, what more do you need, for me to convince you, that this subset-superset-structure, you are proposing, is not according to the definition of what free software is?
Now I don't know in what circles you work, but I suggest, that the people take another look at the definitions and begin distinguishing, if they have any interest in using the correct terms. Why is that important? Well, another quote from the same page:
(quote start)
Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't.
(quote end)
Thank you for now engaging in an actual discussion about the subject and bringing arguments.
That proves no such thing.
You might as well say "check the programming language used on the next 10 or 20 repositories and you will very quickly see what many people think open source programming language to mean."
I only ever licence my own stuff as gpl or the closest cc analog for projects with a physical component, and in almost all conversations, with people in and out of any IT related field or hobby, I call it all open source.
The special meanings for "open source" and "free" are definitions a very few people have come up with as a way to give a label to a distinction which exists so that they can deal with that distinction, but no one I know ever uses those terms in that way in any ordinary conversation or even writings. Even professional writers writing news articls, most frequently use the term open source to apply to anything that isn't closed source. Even they might only say "free" to mean without monetary cost.
The special definitions are almost like a document-local definition. They aren't even jargon. Meaning, you can't even say that everyone in a given field means those definitions when they say those words. The set for which that assumption would be true or at least plausible is only everyone in one or two organizations.
There is an odd pattern I've observed where my opinionated comments get a lot of upvotes during the day and evening, and then I wake up the next day to find they've been nearly reversed overnight. There's some kind of ideological split in the the US tech scene and the rest of the world.
Basically people build their own bubbles everywhere. If you are the one to poke it, you better prepare for the backlash, I learn once more.
I had a hunch initially though, that I would get downvoted for the attempt to distinguish between free and open source though, just like the previous times. However, if I start to self-censor, just because of downvotes, ... imagine if everyone did that. Opinions would go unheard. It is a bad trend. People need to speak up and voice their opinions.
I have also noticed, that if one makes a comment, that is purely positive about something, you are much more likely to get upvoted, but as soon as you criticize anything, you run the risk of being massively downvoted ("Please stay positive!"), especially when it is about open source vs free software or when it is about javascript. Perhaps these populations are just bigger and more people will take offense or they are especially touchy about having something criticized.
Anyway, I should not care too much about random downvotes on HN. There are more productive ways to spend my day.
> Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true? ... Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place? ... Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? ... It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. ... Basically people build their own bubbles everywhere. If you are the one to poke it, you better prepare for the backlash, I learn once more.
All this adds less than nothing to HN, breaks the guidelines in several ways, and everyone is the poorer for having read them. Aside from the unbearable, self-important whining and pouting, it's not so much what you said as how you say it. It seems common to then create a conspiracy theory where it's all about the what, where downvotes somehow just go to show the writer was right. Even if you were 100% right on this page and everyone else 100% wrong, that's no excuse at all to write as you have. And if you are trying to persuade, ranting at people like that seems the worst possible way.
The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft.
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html:
"Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free."
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....:
"The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."
You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages:
"Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example."
It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?
> ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code,
"any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD.
"linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?
ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote.
It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scratch"), and innovation (see the funny part about technology from Japan) are wrong, and purposely so.